• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

“情绪分心图像以渐进的方式干扰目标处理”:勘误。

"Emotional distractor images disrupt target processing in a graded manner": Correction.

机构信息

Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego.

Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University.

出版信息

Emotion. 2022 Aug;22(5):981. doi: 10.1037/emo0001114. Epub 2022 May 26.

DOI:10.1037/emo0001114
PMID:35617262
Abstract

Reports an error in "Emotional distractor images disrupt target processing in a graded manner" by Jonathan M. Keefe and David H. Zald (, Advanced Online Publication, Aug 27, 2020, np). 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 following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2020-63434-001). 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).

摘要

报告了乔纳森·M·基夫(Jonathan M. Keefe)和大卫·H·扎尔德(David H. Zald)的文章“Emotional distractor images disrupt target processing in a graded manner”中的错误(,高级在线出版物,2020 年 8 月 27 日,np)。在乔纳森·M·基夫(Jonathan M. Keefe)和大卫·H·扎尔德(David H. Zald)的文章“Emotional Distractor Images Disrupt Target Processing in a Graded Manner”(,预先在线发布,2020 年 8 月 27 日,https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000893)中,报告了非反应率和准确性数据的错误。滞后 2 条件下的非反应率报告不足,导致结果部分的方差分析值以及表 1 中的滞后 2 t 检验值和图 2A 中的滞后 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括排除试验的数据,导致均值的标准误差的估计值更大。这些更正不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,该研究的任何结论都没有改变。本文的所有版本都已更正。(原始文章的摘要如下)情绪注意眨眼(EAB),也称为情绪诱导性失明,是指当单个目标在时间上接近呈现情绪干扰物时,辨别该目标的能力短暂受损。尽管 EAB 通常被描述为由于情绪干扰物对注意力的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,测试了 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,目标辨别会严重受损,而当目标在情绪干扰物之前出现时,也会适度受损。这种在短滞后时的准确性下降伴随着目标 RT 的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依赖、分级的方式影响目标处理。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竞赛模型一致。(PsycInfo 数据库记录(c)2022 APA,保留所有权利)。

相似文献

1
"Emotional distractor images disrupt target processing in a graded manner": Correction.“情绪分心图像以渐进的方式干扰目标处理”:勘误。
Emotion. 2022 Aug;22(5):981. doi: 10.1037/emo0001114. Epub 2022 May 26.
2
Emotional distractor images disrupt target processing in a graded manner.情绪干扰图片以渐进的方式干扰目标处理。
Emotion. 2022 Aug;22(5):971-981. doi: 10.1037/emo0000893. Epub 2020 Aug 27.
3
The emotional attentional blink is robust to divided attention.情绪性注意瞬脱对注意力分散具有较强的抵抗力。
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2019 Jan;81(1):205-216. doi: 10.3758/s13414-018-1601-0.
4
More than a feeling: The emotional attentional blink relies on non-emotional "pop out," but is weak compared to the attentional blink.不仅仅是感觉:情绪性注意瞬脱依赖于非情绪性的“突出”,但与注意瞬脱相比较弱。
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2023 May;85(4):1034-1053. doi: 10.3758/s13414-023-02677-6. Epub 2023 Mar 14.
5
Reaching back: the relative strength of the retroactive emotional attentional blink.追溯:回溯性情绪注意瞬脱的相对强度。
Sci Rep. 2017 Mar 3;7:43645. doi: 10.1038/srep43645.
6
Manipulations of distractor frequency do not mitigate emotion-induced blindness.干扰频率的操作并不能减轻情绪诱导的盲视。
Cogn Emot. 2019 May;33(3):442-451. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2018.1459490. Epub 2018 Apr 12.
7
Proactive deprioritization of emotional distractors enhances target perception.主动降低情绪干扰物的优先级可增强目标感知。
Emotion. 2018 Oct;18(7):1052-1061. doi: 10.1037/emo0000362. Epub 2017 Sep 4.
8
No effect of hunger on attentional capture by food cues: Two replication studies.饥饿对食物线索引起的注意力捕获没有影响:两项复制研究。
Appetite. 2023 Dec 1;191:107065. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2023.107065. Epub 2023 Sep 28.
9
Reward and emotion influence attentional bias in rapid serial visual presentation.奖励与情绪在快速序列视觉呈现中影响注意偏向。
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2019 Sep;72(9):2155-2167. doi: 10.1177/1747021819840615. Epub 2019 Apr 8.
10
Do emotion-induced blindness and the attentional blink share underlying mechanisms? An event-related potential study of emotionally-arousing words.情绪诱发失明和注意瞬脱是否共享潜在机制?一项关于情绪唤起词的事件相关电位研究。
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2017 Jun;17(3):592-611. doi: 10.3758/s13415-017-0499-7.