Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego.
Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University.
Emotion. 2022 Aug;22(5):971-981. doi: 10.1037/emo0000893. Epub 2020 Aug 27.
[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported online in on May 16 2022 (see record 2022-64181-001). In the article "Emotional Distractor Images Disrupt Target Processing in a Graded Manner" by Jonathan M. Keefe and David H. Zald (, advance online publication, August 27, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000893), there were errors in the reporting of nonresponse rate and accuracy data. Nonresponse rate was underreported for the data in the Lag 2 condition, resulting in incorrect analysis of variance values for this portion of the Results section as well as incorrect Lag 2 t-test values in Table 1 and incorrect Lag 2 values in Figure 2A. Additionally, error bars for the accuracy data in Figure 2B were mistakenly calculated with data including excluded trials, resulting in larger estimates of standard error of the mean. These corrections do not affect the interpretation of any inferential statistics and in fact increased the effect of lag and distractor valence upon both of these measures. Therefore, no conclusions of the study are altered. All versions of this article have been corrected.] The emotional attentional blink (EAB), also referred to as emotion-induced blindness, refers to a transient impairment in the ability to discriminate a single target when it is presented closely in time to an emotional distractor. Although the EAB has typically been characterized as representing a complete loss of target information due to attentional capture by the emotional distractors, it is unclear whether the impact of the emotional distractor is in fact discrete or graded. Here, we tested whether the emotional distractor of the EAB interfered with target processing in a continuous or all-or-none manner by measuring changes in both reaction time (RT) and target-vividness ratings in addition to target-discrimination accuracy. Rapid sequences of landscape images were presented centrally, and participants reported the orientation of a ± 90° rotated target as quickly and accurately as possible. Replicating the classic EAB phenomenon, we found a strong impairment in target discrimination when an emotional distractor shortly preceded the target, and we also found a moderate impairment when the target preceded an emotional distractor. This decrement in accuracy at short lags was accompanied by increases in RT to the target as well as lower ratings of subjective target vividness even when the target was detected, indicating that emotional distractors impacted target processing in a lag-dependent, graded manner. We argue that these results are consistent with an interactive race model of the competition between stimulus representations in the conflict between top-down and bottom-up attentional mechanisms. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
[勘误通知：本文的勘误说明已于 2022 年 5 月 16 日在网上报道（见记录 2022-64181-001）。在 Jonathan M. Keefe 和 David H. Zald 的文章“Emotional Distractor Images Disrupt Target Processing in a Graded Manner”（Emotion，在线提前出版，2020 年 8 月 27 日，https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000893）中，报告了无反应率和准确性数据的错误。Lag 2 条件下的无反应率报告不足，导致结果部分的方差分析值以及表 1 中的 Lag 2 t 检验值和图 2A 中的 Lag 2 值不正确。此外，图 2B 中准确性数据的误差线错误地计算了包含排除试验的数据，导致均值标准误差的估计值较大。这些更正不会影响任何推理统计数据的解释，实际上增加了滞后和干扰者效价对这两个措施的影响。因此，研究的任何结论都没有改变。本文的所有版本都已更正。]情绪注意瞬脱（EAB），也称为情绪诱导性失明，是指当单一目标在时间上接近情绪干扰物时，对其进行辨别能力的短暂受损。尽管 EAB 通常被描述为由于情绪干扰物的注意力捕获而导致目标信息完全丢失，但尚不清楚情绪干扰物的影响实际上是离散的还是分级的。在这里，我们通过测量反应时间（RT）和目标鲜明度评分的变化，以及目标辨别准确性，来测试 EAB 的情绪干扰物是否以连续或全有或全无的方式干扰目标处理。快速呈现景观图像序列，参与者尽可能快速准确地报告±90°旋转目标的方向。复制经典的 EAB 现象，我们发现当情绪干扰物在目标之前短暂出现时，目标的辨别受到强烈损害，而当目标在情绪干扰物之前出现时，损害也适中。在短滞后时，准确性的这种降低伴随着目标的 RT 增加以及主观目标鲜明度评分的降低，即使目标被检测到，这表明情绪干扰物以滞后相关的分级方式影响目标处理。我们认为这些结果与自上而下和自下而上注意力机制之间的冲突中刺激表示之间竞争的交互式种族模型一致。（PsycInfo 数据库记录（c）2022 APA，保留所有权利）。
