Upload
allene
View
44
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Attention and emotion: From data to conceptual issues. Luiz Pessoa Department of Psychology University of Maryland, College Park. Background. 1990s: work showing limitations of visual processing and the need for attention Change blindness Attentional blink. L. R. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Attention and emotion: Attention and emotion: From data to conceptual issuesFrom data to conceptual issues
Luiz PessoaDepartment of Psychology
University of Maryland, College Park
Background
• 1990s: work showing limitations of visual processing and the need for attention Change blindness Attentional blink
Background
• Processing of emotion-laden information is prioritized Independent of awareness
RL
Morris et al. (1998)Whalen et al. (1998)
LeDoux
“Automatic” Processing
Amygdala
Research goal
• Understand the role of attention and awareness during the processing of emotional visual items
Employ strong attentional manipulations
Evaluate awareness with Signal Detection Theory
Role of spatial attention
• Is activity evoked by emotional faces automatic?
OR
• Does activity evoked by emotional faces require attention?
200 ms
Same/differentDifficult: 64% correct
Not drawn to scale
200 ms
Attended Faces
Unattended Faces
Spatial attention
Male/femaleEasy: 91% correct
Attention is required for the expression of valence (N = 21)
• Strong valence X attention interaction: Effect of valence depends on attention
Fear UNATT
Happy UNATT
Neutral UNATT
Happy ATTNeutral ATTFear ATT
-0.10 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Right Amygdala
Re
spo
nse
Am
plit
ude
Seconds
Pessoa et al. (2002): PNAS
X
L R
Emotional perception requires attention
• Attention parametrically manipulated within the same task
• Affective significance enhanced via conditioning
Lim et al. (2008): NeuropsychologiaTask: find X
Easy Hard
Pessoa et al. (2005): NeuroimageHsu and Pessoa (2007): Neuropsychologia
Role of visual awareness
Pessoa et al. (2005): Emotion
Target
Mask
Yes/No
1-3 scaleConfidence?
67 ms
33 ms
Visual awareness: Signal Detection
67 ms
Y = -4
AWARE
L R
33 ms
Y = -4
UNAWARE
L R
Amygdala responses
VS.
Pessoa et al. (2006): Cerebral Cortex
• Many participants can detect fearful faces even at 17 ms
Behavioral results: Individual differences
Szczepanowski and Pessoa et al. (2007): Journal of Vision
17 ms
Fear stimulus > Neutral stimulusAmygdala
Pessoa et al. (2006): Cerebral Cortex
67 ms
“Normals”
N = 19Y = -4
AWARE
L R
“Detecters”
N = 8Y = -6
AWARE
L R
33 ms
Y = -4
UNAWARE
L R
Y = -6
AWARE
L R
x
.
Role of temporal attention/awareness
. . .
. . .
100 ms
100 ms
Lim, Padmala, and Pessoa (2009): PNAS
2 s
T2T1 CS+ vs. CS–
Attentional blink: Behavior (N = 30)
• Enhanced perception of CS+: Reduced blink
T1T2
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
CS+ CS-scene category
T2 a
ccur
ay (%
)CS+
CS–Building or House?
Role of attention/awareness
. . .
. . .
Parahippocampal gyrus
T2
Miss trials
. . .
. . .
T2
Parahippocampal gyrus
Role of attention/awareness
• Miss trials: no differences observed between CS+ and CS- trials
Visual ctx
Amygdala
Time
CS+CS-
Conceptual issues
Impasse
• While a great deal has been learned about the extent and limits of affective visual processing, two camps have opposing and entrenched views
Impasse
• While a great deal has been learned about the extent and limits of affective visual processing, two camps have opposing and entrenched views
Capacity-limited Capacity-Unlimited
Impasse
• While a great deal has been learned about the extent and limits of affective visual processing, two camps have opposing and entrenched views
Capacity-limited Capacity-Unlimited
Not too surprising…
• Emotional stimuli are sufficiently potent that they exhibit a host of properties that do not appear to occur with neutral items
They are processed when unattended
• Affective processing is subject to capacity limitations, as revealed by several experimental manipulations
Attentional blink
Impasse: will it go away?
• Advocates of limited processing can claim that processing resources have not been consumed
“If the manipulation were stronger, the impact of affective items would go away…”
Impasse
• Showing that the emotional effect has disappeared is always subject to the “null problem”
Arguing for the absence of an effect
Power vs. strength of manipulation
Fear unatt
Happy unatt
Neutral unatt
Happy att
Neutral att
Fear att
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Right Amygdala
Seconds
Res
pons
e A
mpl
itude
Left Amygdala
0 2 4 6 8 10 12-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Seconds
Pessoa et al. (2002): PNAS
X
processing resources
Processing resources
• Given the limited capacity of mental processes, performance is impaired if demands are greater than available resources
Easy/efficient
Hard/inefficient
Norman and Bobrow (1975)
Processing resources
processing resources
processing resources
“automatic”
Nakayama and Joseph (1998)
Processing resources
processing resources
processing resources
Capacity limitation Dual-tasks
Nakayama and Joseph (1998)
Processing resources
• Moors and De Houwer (2006): Every process is uncontrolled, efficient, unconcious, and fast
Processing resources
• Moors and De Houwer (2006): Every process is uncontrolled, efficient, unconcious, and fast, to some degree…
• Relative to what?
• Affective processing: relative to neutral not enough Fine comparisons needed (e.g., abrupt onsets,
search, etc.) Broad set of comparison tasks
Two camps
Capacity-limited Capacity-Unlimited
Preattentive-attentive model
t1t2
Stage 1:Preattentive
Stage 2:Attentive
boundary
Preattentive-attentive model
• Some features are processed pre-attentively in virtue of the fact that they are optimally matched to properties of the early visual system (e.g., orientation)
• Affective processing: Sub-cortical pathway Superior colliculus pulvinar amygdala
Dynamic model
Multiple interactive “stages”
Dynamic model
• Processing is not pre-attentive or attentive, but a gradient of processing efficiency is hypothesized to exist
• Gradient based on the properties of early visual areas
• But critically, gradient is dynamically configured based on task demands
• Configuring is suggested to depend on parietal and frontal cortex
Dynamic model
• Multiple “gates”
• Variable permeability
Less susceptible to capacity limitations
More susceptible to capacity limitations
“bottlenecks”
Dynamic model
• Hierarchical and “short-cut” connections
Multiple waves
• Initial processing of visual information proceeds simultaneously along parallel channels
• “Multiple waves” of activation across visual cortex and beyond
• The multiple waves are engaged dynamically based on task requirements
Subcortical processing
Subcortical processing
Pessoa and Adolphs, Nat. Rev. Neurosci (2010)
“passive”
“integrative”
Subcortical processing
Pessoa and Adolphs, Nat. Rev. Neurosci (2010)
Processing architecture and attention
Task 1
Task 2
Collaborators
Ralph Adolphs Jan Engelmann Shruti Japee Shen-Mou Hsu Seung-Lark Lim Srikanth Padmala Remik Szczepanowski Leslie Ungerleider
National Institute of Mental Health
emotioncognition.org