Abstract
Studies investigating age-related positivity effects during facial emotion processing have yielded contradictory results. The present study aimed to elucidate the mechanisms of cognitive control during attentional processing of emotional faces among older adults. We used go/no-go detection tasks combined with event-related potentials and source localization to examine the effects of response inhibition on age-related positivity effects. Data were obtained from 23 older and 23 younger healthy participants. Behavioral results showed that the discriminability index (d') of older adults on fear trials was significantly greater than that of younger adults [t(44)=2.37, p=0.024, Cohen’s d=0.70], whereas an opposite pattern was found in happy trials [t(44)=2.56, p=0.014, Cohen’s d=0.75]. The electroencephalography results on the amplitude of the N170 at the left electrode positions showed that the fear-neutral face pairs were larger than the happy-neutral ones for the younger adults [t(22)=2.32, p=0.030, Cohen’s d=0.48]; the older group’s right hemisphere presented similar tendency, although the results were not statistically significant [t(22)=1.97, p=0.061, Cohen’s d=0.41]. Further, the brain activity of the two hemispheres in older adults showed asymmetrical decrement. Our study demonstrated that the age-related “positivity effect” was not observed owing to the depletion of available cognitive resources at the early attentional stage. Moreover, bilateral activation of the two hemispheres may be important signals of normal aging.
Highlights
The term “positivity effect” was first put forward by Charles et al (2003); it describes the age-related differences in facial emotion processing
Three theories focused on age differences in cognitive and emotional functions have been derived from the socioemotional selectivity theory (SST) – the positivity effect (PE), cognitive control hypothesis (CCH), and strength and vulnerability integration – which are generally referred to as second-generation socioemotional selectivity theories (SGSST; Charles and Hong, 2017)
For the peak latency of the P1 component (Table 3 and Figure 3), a significant main effect of electrode location was found [F(1,44) = 4.31, p = 0.044, η2 = 0.09], such that the P1 latency was shorter in the left hemisphere than in the right hemisphere (Mleft = 107.70 ± 2.42; Mright = 113.61 ± 2.37, p = 0.044)
Summary
The term “positivity effect” was first put forward by Charles et al (2003); it describes the age-related differences in facial emotion processing. Evidence has shown that young adults show a selective preference for negative emotional expressions (e.g., angry) compared to positive ones (LoBue et al, 2014). They found a positive dominance (e.g., happy expressions). The age-related differences in attentional preferences can possibly be explained by the theoretical framework of socioemotional selectivity theory (SST; Charles and Urban, 2015). Three theories focused on age differences in cognitive and emotional functions have been derived from the SST – the positivity effect (PE), cognitive control hypothesis (CCH), and strength and vulnerability integration – which are generally referred to as second-generation socioemotional selectivity theories (SGSST; Charles and Hong, 2017)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
