Lacreuse Agnès, Schatz Kelly, Strazzullo Sarah, King Hanna M, Ready Rebecca
Department of Psychology, 135 Hicks Way, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA,
Anim Cogn. 2013 Nov;16(6):861-71. doi: 10.1007/s10071-013-0618-y. Epub 2013 Mar 5.
We examined attentional biases for social and non-social emotional stimuli in young adult men and compared the results to those of male rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) previously tested in a similar dot-probe task (King et al. in Psychoneuroendocrinology 37(3):396-409, 2012). Recognition memory for these stimuli was also analyzed in each species, using a recognition memory task in humans and a delayed non-matching-to-sample task in monkeys. We found that both humans and monkeys displayed a similar pattern of attentional biases toward threatening facial expressions of conspecifics. The bias was significant in monkeys and of marginal significance in humans. In addition, humans, but not monkeys, exhibited an attentional bias away from negative non-social images. Attentional biases for social and non-social threat differed significantly, with both species showing a pattern of vigilance toward negative social images and avoidance of negative non-social images. Positive stimuli did not elicit significant attentional biases for either species. In humans, emotional content facilitated the recognition of non-social images, but no effect of emotion was found for the recognition of social images. Recognition accuracy was not affected by emotion in monkeys, but response times were faster for negative relative to positive images. Altogether, these results suggest shared mechanisms of social attention in humans and monkeys, with both species showing a pattern of selective attention toward threatening faces of conspecifics. These data are consistent with the view that selective vigilance to social threat is the result of evolutionary constraints. Yet, selective attention to threat was weaker in humans than in monkeys, suggesting that regulatory mechanisms enable non-anxious humans to reduce sensitivity to social threat in this paradigm, likely through enhanced prefrontal control and reduced amygdala activation. In addition, the findings emphasize important differences in attentional biases to social versus non-social threat in both species. Differences in the impact of emotional stimuli on recognition memory between monkeys and humans will require further study, as methodological differences in the recognition tasks may have affected the results.
我们研究了年轻成年男性对社交和非社交情感刺激的注意偏向,并将结果与先前在类似点探测任务中测试的雄性恒河猴(猕猴)的结果进行了比较(King等人,《心理神经内分泌学》37(3):396 - 409,2012)。还使用人类的识别记忆任务和猴子的延迟非匹配样本任务,分析了每个物种对这些刺激的识别记忆。我们发现,人类和猴子对同种个体的威胁性面部表情都表现出类似的注意偏向模式。这种偏向在猴子中显著,在人类中具有边缘显著性。此外,人类而非猴子表现出远离负面非社交图像的注意偏向。社交和非社交威胁的注意偏向有显著差异,两个物种都表现出对负面社交图像保持警惕和避免负面非社交图像的模式。积极刺激对两个物种都没有引发显著的注意偏向。在人类中,情感内容促进了对非社交图像的识别,但对于社交图像的识别未发现情感影响。猴子的识别准确性不受情感影响,但相对于正面图像,负面图像的反应时间更快。总之,这些结果表明人类和猴子在社交注意方面有共同机制,两个物种都对同种个体的威胁性面孔表现出选择性注意模式。这些数据与以下观点一致,即对社交威胁的选择性警惕是进化限制的结果。然而,人类对威胁的选择性注意比猴子弱,这表明调节机制使非焦虑的人类能够在这种范式中降低对社交威胁的敏感性,可能是通过增强前额叶控制和减少杏仁核激活。此外,研究结果强调了两个物种在对社交与非社交威胁的注意偏向方面的重要差异。猴子和人类之间情感刺激对识别记忆的影响差异需要进一步研究,因为识别任务中的方法差异可能影响了结果。