Abstract

Studies presenting memory-facilitating effect of emotions typically focused on affective dimensions of arousal and valence. Little is known, however, about the extent to which stimulus-driven basic emotions could have distinct effects on memory. In the present paper we sought to examine the modulatory effect of disgust, fear, and sadness on intentional remembering and forgetting using widely used item-method directed forgetting (DF) paradigm. Eighteen women underwent fMRI scanning during encoding phase in which they were asked either to remember (R) or to forget (F) pictures. In the test phase all previously used stimuli were re-presented together with the same number of new pictures and participants had to categorize them as old or new, irrespective of the F/R instruction. On the behavioral level we found a typical DF effect, i.e., higher recognition rates for to-be-remembered (TBR) items than to-be-forgotten (TBF) ones for both neutral and emotional categories. Emotional stimuli had higher recognition rate than neutral ones, while among emotional those eliciting disgust produced highest recognition, but at the same time induced more false alarms. Therefore, when false alarm corrected recognition was examined the DF effect was equally strong irrespective of emotion. Additionally, even though subjects rated disgusting pictures as more arousing and negative than other picture categories, logistic regression on the item level showed that the effect of disgust on recognition memory was stronger than the effect of arousal or valence. On the neural level, ROI analyses (with valence and arousal covariates) revealed that correctly recognized disgusting stimuli evoked the highest activity in the left amygdala compared to all other categories. This structure was also more activated for remembered vs. forgotten stimuli, but only in case of disgust or fear eliciting pictures. Our findings, despite several limitations, suggest that disgust have a special salience in memory relative to other negative emotions, which cannot be put down to differences in arousal or valence. The current results thereby support the suggestion that a purely dimensional model of emotional influences on cognition might not be adequate to account for observed effects.

Highlights

  • Beneficial impact of emotion on memory is well-documented

  • Recognition Rates for TBR_R, TBF_R Trials and False Alarms The effectiveness of the directed forgetting (DF) paradigm was tested firstly in line with previous studies (Wylie et al, 2008; Nowicka et al, 2011; Lee and Hsu, 2013) by analyzing recognition rates for TBR_R and TBF_R trials as well as false alarms using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with type of stimulus (TBR_R, TBF_R, and false alarms) and type of emotion as factors

  • The DF effect was observed for each emotion type: disgust (TBR_R = 78.9% vs. TBF_R = 65%, p = 0.001), fear (TBR_R = 70.3% vs. TBF_R = 55.8%, p < 0.001), sadness (TBR_R = 67.9% vs. TBF_R = 60.4%, p = 0.051), as well as neutral images (TBR_R = 57% vs. TBF_R = 49.1%, p = 0.035)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Beneficial impact of emotion on memory is well-documented. Emotionally arousing stimuli are better remembered than emotionally neutral ones (Rubin and Friendly, 1986; Bradley et al, 1992; Palomba et al, 1997; Ochsner, 2000) and memories of emotional events have a persistence and vividness that other memories seem to lack (Christianson, 1992). Little is known about the extent to which basic emotions evoked by the emotional stimuli could have distinct effects on memory over and above their dimensional influence. Even though many studies showed an association between specific brain structures and particular basic emotions, there is little consensus whether basic emotions are linked with both consistent and discriminable regional brain activations (Vytal and Hamann, 2010). It seems that more complex, network-based representations of emotion are needed rather than simple oneto-one mappings between emotions and brain regions (Saarimäki et al, 2015; for review see Kragel and LaBar, 2014)

Objectives
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