The role of cognitive control mechanisms in selective attention towards emotional stimuli

ABSTRACT

The role of cognitive control mechanisms in reducing interference from emotionally salient distractors was investigated. In two experiments, participants performed a flanker task in which target-distractor affective compatibility and cognitive load were manipulated. Differently from past studies, targets and distractors were presented at separate spatial locations and cognitive load was not domain-specific. In Experiment 1, words (positive vs. negative) and faces (angry, happy or neutral faces), were used respectively as targets and distractors, whereas in Experiment 2, both targets (happy vs. angry) and distractors were faces. Findings showed interference from distractor processing only when cognitive load was high. The present findings indicate that, when targets and distractors are presented at different spatial locations, cognitive control mechanisms are involved in preventing interference from positive (Exp. 1) or negative distractors (Exp. 2). The role of stimulus valence and type is also discussed with regard to different patterns of interference observed.

KEYWORDS:

• Selective attention
• cognitive load
• emotional stimuli
• flanker task

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Alternatively, (we are thankful to an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion) it is possible that cognitive control mechanisms are recruited to optimise task performance only when cognitive load is moderate (e.g. Dolcos & McCarthy, 2006; Erk et al., 2007), whereas they are not recruited in absence of cognitive load (as the need to optimise task performance is low) and they cannot be recruited with high cognitive load (as they are depleted by load). In these latter cases emotional distractors capture attention and interfere with task performance (e.g. Lichtenstein-Vidne et al., 2012).

2. Although RTs on trials with emotional distractors (happy + angry: M = 905, SE = 31), were slower than on trials with neutral distractors, t(26) = 2.41, p = .023 under high cognitive load but not under low cognitive load, t(26) = 1.35, p = .190.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Sapienza University of Rome [Grant C26A14JFTP 2014 to AP].