↓ Skip to main content

Newly-formed emotional memories guide selective attention processes: Evidence from event-related potentials

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Newly-formed emotional memories guide selective attention processes: Evidence from event-related potentials
Published in
Scientific Reports, June 2016
DOI 10.1038/srep28091
Pubmed ID
Authors

Harald T. Schupp, Ursula Kirmse, Ralf Schmälzle, Tobias Flaisch, Britta Renner

Abstract

Emotional cues can guide selective attention processes. However, emotional stimuli can both activate long-term memory representations reflecting general world knowledge and engage newly formed memory representations representing specific knowledge from the immediate past. Here, the self-completion feature of associative memory was utilized to assess the regulation of attention processes by newly-formed emotional memory. First, new memory representations were formed by presenting pictures depicting a person either in an erotic pose or as a portrait. Afterwards, to activate newly-built memory traces, edited pictures were presented showing only the head region of the person. ERP recordings revealed the emotional regulation of attention by newly-formed memories. Specifically, edited pictures from the erotic compared to the portrait category elicited an early posterior negativity and late positive potential, similar to the findings observed for the original pictures. A control condition showed that the effect was dependent on newly-formed memory traces. Given the large number of new memories formed each day, they presumably make an important contribution to the regulation of attention in everyday life.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 6 17%
Student > Master 6 17%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 50%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Arts and Humanities 2 6%
Linguistics 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 7 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 June 2016.
All research outputs
#18,464,797
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#93,520
of 123,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,491
of 353,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#2,690
of 3,670 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 123,594 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,670 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.