Top

Gepubliceerd in:

27-11-2017 | Original Article

Individual differences in emotion processing: how similar are diffusion model parameters across tasks?

Auteurs: Christina J. Mueller, Corey N. White, Lars Kuchinke

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 6/2019

Abstract

The goal of this study was to replicate findings of diffusion model parameters capturing emotion effects in a lexical decision task and investigating whether these findings extend to other tasks of implicit emotion processing. Additionally, we were interested in the stability of diffusion model parameters across emotional stimuli and tasks for individual subjects. Responses to words in a lexical decision task were compared with responses to faces in a gender categorization task for stimuli of the emotion categories: happy, neutral and fear. Main effects of emotion as well as stability of emerging response style patterns as evident in diffusion model parameters across these tasks were analyzed. Based on earlier findings, drift rates were assumed to be more similar in response to stimuli of the same emotion category compared to stimuli of a different emotion category. Results showed that emotion effects of the tasks differed with a processing advantage for happy followed by neutral and fear-related words in the lexical decision task and a processing advantage for neutral followed by happy and fearful faces in the gender categorization task. Both emotion effects were captured in estimated drift rate parameters—and in case of the lexical decision task also in the non-decision time parameters. A principal component analysis showed that contrary to our hypothesis drift rates were more similar within a specific task context than within a specific emotion category. Individual response patterns of subjects across tasks were evident in significant correlations regarding diffusion model parameters including response styles, non-decision times and information accumulation.

vorige artikel Correction to: Gender differences in SCRABBLE performance and associated engagement in purposeful practice activities

volgende artikel The effect of height and shoulder-to-hip ratio on interpersonal space in virtual environment

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Anderson, A. K., Christoff, K., Panitz, D., De Rosa, E., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2003). Neural Correlates of the Automatic Processing of Threat Facial Signals. The Journal of Neuroscience, 23(13), 5627–5633.CrossRefPubMed

Barret, L. F. (2017). How emotions are made. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Batty, M., & Taylor, M. J. (2003). Early processing of the six basic facial emotional expressions. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 613–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(03)00174-5.CrossRefPubMed

Bayer, M., & Schacht, A. (2014). Event-related brain responses to emotional words, pictures, and faces—a cross-domain comparison. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–10.CrossRef

Bayer, M., Sommer, W., & Schacht, A. (2012). P1 and beyond: Functional separation of multiple emotion effects in word recognition. Psychophysiology, 49, 959–969. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01381.x.CrossRefPubMed

Bowen, H. J., Spaniol, J., Patel, R., & Voss, A. (2016). A diffusion model analysis of decision biases affecting delayed recognition of emotional stimuli. PLoS One 11(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146769.CrossRef

Briesemeister, B. B., Kuchinke, L., & Jacobs, A. M. (2011a). Discrete emotion effects on lexical decision response times. PLoS One, 6(8), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023743.CrossRef

Briesemeister, B. B., Kuchinke, L., & Jacobs, A. M. (2011b). Discrete emotion norms for nouns: Berlin affective word list (DENN-BAWL). Behavior Research Methods, 43(2), 441–448. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0059-y.CrossRefPubMed

Calvo, M. G., & Nummenmaa, L. (2008). Detection of emotional faces: salient physical features guide effective visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(3), 471–494. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012771.CrossRef

Caramazza, A. (1996). Pictures, words and the brain. Nature, 383(6597), 216–217. https://doi.org/10.1038/383216a0.CrossRefPubMed

Estes, Z., & Adelman, J. S. (2008). Automatic vigilance for negative words is categorical and general. Emotion, 8(4), 453–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012887.CrossRef

Hofmann, M. J., Kuchinke, L., Tamm, S., Võ, M. L.-H., & Jacobs, A. M. (2009). Affective processing within 1/10th of a second: High arousal is necessary for early facilitative processing of negative but not positive words. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 9(4), 389–397. https://doi.org/10.3758/9.4.389.CrossRef

Juth, P., Lundqvist, D., Karlsson, A., & Öhman, A. (2005). Looking for foes and friends: perceptual and emotional factors when finding a face in the crowd. Emotion, 5(4), 379–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.5.4.379.CrossRefPubMed

Kanske, P., & Kotz, S. A. (2007). Concreteness in emotional words: ERP evidence from a hemifield study. Brain Research, 1148, 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.02.044.CrossRefPubMed

Kirita, T., & Endo, M. (1995). Happy face advantage in recognizing facial expressions. Acta Psychologica, 89, 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(94)00021-8.CrossRef

Kissler, J., & Herbert, C. (2013). Emotion, etmnooi, or emitoon?—faster lexical access to emotional than to neutral words during reading. Biological Psychology, 92, 464–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.09.004.CrossRefPubMed

Kuchinke, L., Fritsch, N., & Mueller, C. J. (2015). Evaluative conditioning of positive and negative valence affects P1 and N1 in verbal processing. Brain Research, 1624, 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2015.07.059.CrossRefPubMed

Kuchinke, L., & Lux, V. (2012). Caffeine improves left hemisphere processing of positive words. PLoS One, 7(11), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048487.CrossRef

Langner, O., Dotsch, R., Bijlstra, G., Wigboldus, D. H. J., Hawk, S. T., & van Knippenberg, A. (2010). Presentation and validation of the Radboud Faces Database. Cognition and Emotion, 24(8), 1377–1388. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930903485076.CrossRef

Mueller, C. J., & Kuchinke, L. (2016). Individual differences in emotion word processing—a diffusion model analysis. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 16(3), 489–501. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-016-0408-5.CrossRefPubMed

Pe, M. L., Vandekerckhove, J., & Kuppens, P. (2013). A diffusion model account of the relationship between the emotional flanker task and rumination and depression. Emotion, 13(4), 739–747. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031628.CrossRefPubMed

Ratcliff, R., Gomez, P., & McKoon, G. (2004). A diffusion model account of the lexical decision task. Psychological Review, 111(1), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.159.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ratcliff, R., Thapar, A., & McKoon, G. (2006). Aging and individual differences in rapid two-choice decisions. Psychonomical Bulletin Review, 13(4), 626–635. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193973.CrossRef

Rellecke, J., Palazova, M., Sommer, W., & Schacht, A. (2011). On the automaticity of emotion processing in words and faces: Event-related brain potentials evidence from a superficial task. Brain and Cognition, 77(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2011.07.001.CrossRefPubMed

Schacht, A., & Sommer, W. (2009). Emotions in word and face processing: Early and late cortical responses. Brain and Cognition, 69(3), 538–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2008.11.005.CrossRefPubMed

Schlochtermeier, L. H., Kuchinke, L., Pehrs, C., Urton, K., Kappelhoff, H., & Jacobs, A. M. (2013). Emotional picture and word processing: an fMRI study on effects of stimulus complexity. PLoS One, 8(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055619.CrossRef

Schlochtermeier, L. H., Pehrs, C., Kappelhoff, H., Kuchinke, L., & Jacobs, A. M. (2015). Emotion processing in different media types: Realism, complexity, and immersion. Journal of Systems and Integrative Neuroscience, 1, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.15761/JSIN.1000109.CrossRef

Unkelbach, C., Fiedler, K., Bayer, M., Stegmüller, M., & Danner, D. (2008). Why positive information is processed faster: The density hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.36.CrossRefPubMed

Voss, A., Nagler, M., & Lerche, V. (2013). Diffusion models in experimental psychology: A practical introduction. Experimental Psychology, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000218.

Voss, A., & Voss, J. (2007). Fast-dm: A free program for efficient diffusion model analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 39(4), 767–775. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192967.CrossRefPubMed

Westbury, C. F., Cribben, I., & Cummine, J. (2016). Imaging imageability: behavioral effects and neural correlates of its interaction with affect and context. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10(346), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00346.CrossRef

White, C., Ratcliff, R., Vasey, M., & McKoon, G. (2009). Dysphoria and memory for emotional material: A diffusion-model analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 23(1), 181–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930801976770.CrossRefPubMed

White, C., Ratcliff, R., Vasey, M., & McKoon, G. (2010). Anxiety enhances threat processing without competition among multiple inputs: A diffusion model analysis. Emotion, 10(5), 662–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019474.CrossRefPubMed

White, C. N., Ratcliff, R., & Starns, J. J. (2011). Diffusion models of the flanker task: Discrete versus gradual attentional selection. Cognitive Psychology, 63, 210–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.08.001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Individual differences in emotion processing: how similar are diffusion model parameters across tasks?
Auteurs: Christina J. Mueller
Corey N. White
Lars Kuchinke
Publicatiedatum: 27-11-2017
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 6/2019
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0953-8

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2019

Food for thought: association between dietary tyrosine and cognitive performance in younger and older adults

Experimental validation of the diffusion model based on a slow response time paradigm

Eye contact effects on social preference and face recognition in normal ageing and in Alzheimer’s disease

Politicians lie, so do I

Morality and soap in engineers and social scientists: the Macbeth effect interacts with professions

Gender differences in SCRABBLE performance and associated engagement in purposeful practice activities