Neural Correlates of Opposing Effects of Emotional Distraction on Perception and Episodic Memory: An Event-Related fMRI Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A main question in emotion and memory literature concerns the relationship between the immediate impact of emotional distraction on perception and the long-term impact of emotion on memory. While previous research shows both automatic and resource-mediated mechanisms to be involved in initial emotion processing and memory, it remains unclear what the exact relationship between the immediate and long-term effects is, and how this relationship may change as a function of manipulations at perception favoring the engagement of either more automatic or mediated mechanisms. Using event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging, we varied the degree of resource availability for processing task-irrelevant emotional information, to determine how the initial (impairing) impact of emotional distraction related to the long-term (enhancing) impact of emotion on memory. Results showed that a direct relationship between emotional distraction and memory was dependent on automatic mechanisms, as this was found only under conditions of limited resource availability and engagement of amygdala (AMY)-hippocampal (HC) mechanisms to both impairing and enhancing effects. A hemispheric disassociation was also identified in AMY-HC, where while both sides were associated with emotional distraction and left AMY and anterior HC were linked to emotional memory, functional asymmetry was only identified in the posterior HC, with only the left side contributing to emotional memory. Finally, areas dissociating between the two opposing effects included the medial frontal, precentral, superior temporal, and middle occipital gyri (linked to emotional distraction), and the superior parietal cortex (linked to emotional memory). These findings demonstrate the relationship between emotional distraction and memory is context dependent and that specific brain regions may be more or less susceptible to the direction of emotional modulation (increased or decreased), depending on the task manipulation, and processes investigated.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".