Abstract:AbstractThe present research used behavioral and event-related brain potentials (ERP) measures to determine whether emotional capture is automatic in the emotion-induced blindness (EIB) paradigm. The first experiment varied the priority of performing two concurrent tasks: identifying a negative or neutral picture appearing in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) stream of pictures and multiple object tracking (MOT). Results showed that increased attention to the MOT task resulted in decreased accuracy for identifying both negative and neutral target pictures accompanied by decreases in the amplitude of the P3b component. In contrast, the early posterior negativity (EPN) component elicited by negative pictures was unaffected by variations in attention. Similarly, there was a decrement in MOT performance for dual-task vs. single task conditions but no effect of picture type (negative vs. neutral) on MOT accuracy which isn't consistent with automatic emotional capture of attention. However, the MOT task might simply be insensitive to brief interruptions of attention. The second experiment used a more sensitive reaction time (RT) measure to examine this possibility. Results showed that RT to discriminate a gap appearing in a tracked object was delayed by the simultaneous appearance of to-be-ignored distractor pictures even though MOT performance was once again unaffected by the distractor. Importantly, the RT delay was the same for both negative and neutral distractors suggesting that capture was driven by physical salience rather than emotional salience of the distractors. Despite this lack of emotional capture, the EPN component, which is thought to reflect emotional capture, was still present. We suggest that the EPN doesn't reflect capture but rather downstream effects of attention, including object recognition. These results show that capture by emotional pictures in EIB can be suppressed when attention is engaged in another difficult task. The results have important implications for understanding capture effects in EIB.

Frequency of filler items does not modulate the emotional attentional blink

More than a feeling: The emotional attentional blink relies on non-emotional "pop out," but is weak compared to the attentional blink

Neural Suppression of Distractors Surrounding the Spotlight: Evidence from Steady-State Visual Evoked Potentials.

Emotional capture during emotion-induced blindness is not automatic

Manipulations of distractor frequency do not mitigate emotion-induced blindness

Do emotion-induced blindness and the attentional blink share underlying mechanisms? An event-related potential study of emotionally-arousing words

Searching for emotional salience

Task-irrelevant filler items alter the dynamics of electrical brain activity during visual search

Encoding suppression: Linking spatial cueing costs to the attentional blink

Temporal-spatial neural activation patterns linked to perceptual encoding of emotional salience

Weaker inhibition after happy faces: evidence from an attentional blink task with emotional and neutral faces

Crisis-related stimuli do not increase the emotional attentional blink in a general university student population

Emotional capture of spatial attention is suppressed in high anxiety but at a non-spatial time cost

Emotional Distractors Capture Attention even at Very Low Contrast Levels: ERP evidence

Habituation to emotional distractors attenuates emotion-induced blindness.

Not feeling it: lack of robust emotion effects on breadth of attention

An attentional blink for sequentially presented targets: Evidence in favor of resource depletion accounts

Sustained training with novel distractors attenuates the behavioral interference of emotional pictures but does not affect the electrocortical markers of emotional processing

The role of distractors in rapid serial visual presentation reveals the mechanism of attentional blink by EEG-based univariate and multivariate analyses

Distinct neural bases of subcomponents of the attentional blink

Attentional suppression of dynamic versus static salient distractors