University of Tartu, Institute of Psychology, Division of Experimental Psychology, Näituse-2, Tartu 50409, Estonia; University of Tartu, Institute of Psychology, Division of Neuropsychopharmacology, Näituse-2, Tartu 50409, Estonia.
University of Tartu, Institute of Psychology, Division of Experimental Psychology, Näituse-2, Tartu 50409, Estonia.
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2020 Sep;209:103117. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103117. Epub 2020 Jun 27.
Individual differences in updating emotional facial expressions in working memory are not fully understood. Here we focused on the effects of high trait anxiety and high depressiveness in men and women on updating schematic emotional facial expressions (sad, angry, scheming, happy, neutral). A population representative sample of young adults was divided into four emotional disposition groups based on STAI-T and MADRS cut-offs: high anxiety (HA, n = 41), high depressiveness (HD, n = 31), high depressiveness & high anxiety (HAHD, n = 65) and control (CT, n = 155). Participants completed a 2-back task with schematic emotional faces, and valence/arousal ratings and verbal recognition tasks. A novel approach was used to separate encoding from retrieval. We found an interaction of emotional dispositions and emotional faces in updating accuracy. HD group made more errors than HA when encoding happy schematic faces. Other differences between emotional dispositions on updating measures were found but they were not specific to any emotional facial expression. Our findings suggest that there is a minor happy disadvantage in HD in contrast to HA which can be seen in lower accuracy for visual encoding of happy faces, but not in retrieval accuracy, the speed of updating, nor perception of emotional content in happy faces. These findings help to explain differences and similarities between high trait anxiety and high depressiveness in working memory and processing of facial expressions. The results are discussed in relation to prevalent theories of information processing in anxiety and depression.
个体在工作记忆中更新情绪面部表情的差异尚不完全清楚。在这里，我们关注的是男性和女性的高特质焦虑和高抑郁倾向对 schematic 情绪面部表情（悲伤、愤怒、狡猾、快乐、中性）更新的影响。根据 STAI-T 和 MADRS 的切点，我们将一个具有代表性的年轻成年人样本分为四个情绪倾向组：高焦虑（HA，n=41）、高抑郁（HD，n=31）、高焦虑和高抑郁（HAHD，n=65）和对照组（CT，n=155）。参与者完成了一项带有 schematic 情绪面孔的 2 项任务，以及效价/唤醒评分和言语识别任务。我们采用了一种新的方法来分离编码和检索。我们发现情绪倾向和情绪面孔在更新准确性方面存在交互作用。在编码快乐 schematic 面孔时，HD 组比 HA 组犯的错误更多。在更新测量方面，我们还发现了情绪倾向之间的其他差异，但这些差异不是针对任何情绪面部表情的。我们的研究结果表明，与 HA 相比，HD 存在轻微的快乐劣势，这可以从编码快乐面孔时的视觉准确性较低看出，但在检索准确性、更新速度或快乐面孔的情绪内容感知方面并没有差异。这些发现有助于解释工作记忆和面部表情处理中高特质焦虑和高抑郁之间的差异和相似之处。结果与焦虑和抑郁中普遍存在的信息处理理论相关联进行了讨论。
Zotero 插件