Literature DB >> 17201360

Mental rubbernecking to negative information depends on task context.

Marcia K Johnson1, Karen J Mitchell, Carol L Raye, Joseph T McGuire, Charles A Sanislow.   

Abstract

We previously demonstrated mental rubbernecking during the simple cognitive act of refreshing a just activated representation. Participants saw two neutral and one negative word presented simultaneously and, 425 msec later, were cued to mentally refresh (i.e., think of) one of the no-longer-present words. They were slower to refresh a neutral word than the negative word (Johnson et al., 2005, Experiment 6A). The present experiments extended that work by showing mental rubbernecking when negative items were sometimes the target of refreshing, but not when negative items were present but never the target of refreshing, indicating that expectations influence mental rubbernecking. How expectations might modulate the impact of emotional distraction is discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17201360     DOI: 10.3758/bf03193971

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  28 in total

1.  The relative involvement of anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex in attentional control depends on nature of conflict.

Authors:  M P Milham; M T Banich; A Webb; V Barad; N J Cohen; T Wszalek; A F Kramer
Journal:  Brain Res Cogn Brain Res       Date:  2001-12

2.  Cognitive and neural mechanisms of emotional memory.

Authors:  S Hamann
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2001-09-01       Impact factor: 20.229

Review 3.  Neuroimaging studies of attention and the processing of emotion-laden stimuli.

Authors:  Luiz Pessoa; Leslie G Ungerleider
Journal:  Prog Brain Res       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.453

4.  Memory enhancement for emotional words: are emotional words more vividly remembered than neutral words?

Authors:  Elizabeth A Kensinger; Suzanne Corkin
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2003-12

5.  Using fMRI to investigate a component process of reflection: prefrontal correlates of refreshing a just-activated representation.

Authors:  Marcia K Johnson; Carol L Raye; Karen J Mitchell; Erich J Greene; William A Cunningham; Charles A Sanislow
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.282

6.  Anxiety and the allocation of attention to threat.

Authors:  C MacLeod; A Mathews
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  1988-11

Review 7.  Cognitive approaches to emotion and emotional disorders.

Authors:  A Mathews; C MacLeod
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 24.137

8.  Anxiety and attention to threatening pictures.

Authors:  J Yiend; A Mathews
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  2001-08

9.  Attentional mechanisms of borderline personality disorder.

Authors:  Michael I Posner; Mary K Rothbart; Nathalie Vizueta; Kenneth N Levy; David E Evans; Kathleen M Thomas; John F Clarkin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2002-11-27       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Effects of Alzheimer disease on memory for verbal emotional information.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Kensinger; Alberta Anderson; John H Growdon; Suzanne Corkin
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 3.139

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Source monitoring 15 years later: what have we learned from fMRI about the neural mechanisms of source memory?

Authors:  Karen J Mitchell; Marcia K Johnson
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 17.737

2.  The consequence of refreshing for access to nonselected items in young and older adults.

Authors:  Julie A Higgins; Marcia K Johnson
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2009-03

3.  The limits of arousal's memory-impairing effects on nearby information.

Authors:  Mara Mather; Marissa A Gorlick; Kathryn Nesmith
Journal:  Am J Psychol       Date:  2009

4.  When a thought equals a look: refreshing enhances perceptual memory.

Authors:  Do-Joon Yi; Nicholas B Turk-Browne; Marvin M Chun; Marcia K Johnson
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.225

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.