Abstract

Biased attention towards emotional stimuli is adaptive, as it facilitates responses to important threats and rewards. An unfortunate consequence is that emotional stimuli can become potent distractors when they are irrelevant to current goals. How can this distraction be overcome despite the bias to attend to emotional stimuli? Recent studies show that distraction by irrelevant flankers is reduced when distractor frequency is high, even if they are emotional. A parsimonious explanation is that the expectation of frequent distractors promotes the use of proactive control, whereby attentional control settings can be altered to minimize distraction before it occurs. It is difficult, however, to infer proactive control on the basis of behavioral data alone. We therefore measured neural indices of proactive control while participants performed a target-detection task in which irrelevant peripheral distractors (either emotional or neutral) could appear either frequently (on 75% of trials) or rarely (on 25% of trials). We measured alpha power during the pre-stimulus period to assess proactive control and during the post-stimulus period to determine the consequences of control for subsequent processing. Pre-stimulus alpha power was tonically suppressed in the high, compared to low, distractor frequency condition, regardless of expected distractor valence, indicating sustained use of proactive control. In contrast, post-stimulus alpha suppression was reduced in the high-frequency condition, suggesting that proactive control reduced the need for post-stimulus adjustments. Our findings indicate that a sustained proactive control strategy accounts for the reduction in both emotional and non-emotional distraction when distractors are expected to appear frequently.

Highlights

  • An attentional bias towards emotional stimuli can be advantageous, because they often signal the presence of threats and rewards (Yiend, 2010; Okon-Singer et al, 2013; Pourtois et al, 2013) and so can guide adaptive behavior (LeDoux, 1996)

  • Our findings indicate that a sustained proactive control strategy accounts for the reduction in both emotional and non-emotional distraction when distractors are expected to appear frequently

  • We draw on the Dual Mechanisms of Control framework (DMC; Braver et al, 2007; Braver, 2012), which provides an explanation of cognitive control in non-emotional contexts

Read more

Summary

Introduction

An attentional bias towards emotional stimuli can be advantageous, because they often signal the presence of threats and rewards (Yiend, 2010; Okon-Singer et al, 2013; Pourtois et al, 2013) and so can guide adaptive behavior (LeDoux, 1996). We draw on the Dual Mechanisms of Control framework (DMC; Braver et al, 2007; Braver, 2012), which provides an explanation of cognitive control in non-emotional contexts. The extent to which either strategy is used shifts dynamically, based on motivational and task demands, according to a cognitive cost–benefit analysis (Braver, 2012). Because proactive control requires the active (and costly) maintenance of the current goal, we use reactive control as the default strategy and only shift to proactive control when the benefits outweigh the costs, for example, when conflict is expected or when incentives are available to motivate good performance (Braver et al, 2007; Locke and Braver, 2008; Aron, 2011).

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (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