Dissociating Enhancing and Impairing Effects of Emotion on Cognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Emotion is a “double‐edged sword” that can either enhance or hinder various aspects of our cognition and behavior. The emotional charge of an event can increase attention to and memory for that event, whereas task‐irrelevant emotional information may lead to increased distraction and impaired performance in ongoing cognitive tasks. These opposing effects of emotion can be identified at different levels, both within the same cognitive process and across different processes, and could also be identified at more general levels, such as in the case of the response to stress. The present review discusses emerging evidence regarding factors that influence opposite effects of emotion on cognition in healthy functioning, and how they may be linked to clinical conditions. These issues are important for understanding mechanisms of emotion‐cognition interactions in healthy functioning and in emotional disturbances, where both of these effects are exacerbated and tend to co‐occur. Overall, the present review highlights the need to consider the various factors that can influence enhancing or impairing effects of emotion on cognition, in studies investigating emotion‐cognition interactions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".