Insula and Orbital Frontal Cortex Activity Underlying Emotion Interference Resolution in Working Memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has shown that emotional information aids conflict resolution in working memory [WM; Levens, S. M., & Phelps, E. A. Emotion processing effects on interference resolution in working memory. Journal of Emotion, 8, 267-280, 2008]. Using a recency-probes WM paradigm, it was found that positive and negative emotional stimuli reduced the amount of interference created when information that was once relevant conflicted with currently relevant information. To explore the neural mechanisms behind these facilitation effects, an event-related fMRI version of the recency-probes task was conducted using neutral and arousing positive and negative words as stimuli. Results replicate previous findings showing that the left and right inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) is involved in the interference resolution of neutral information and reveal that the IFG is involved in the interference resolution of emotional information as well. In addition, ROIs in the right and left anterior insula and in the right orbital frontal cortex (OFC) were identified that appear to underlie emotional interference resolution in WM. We conclude that the IFG underlies neutral and emotional interference resolution, and that additional regions of the anterior insula and OFC may contribute to the facilitation of interference resolution for emotional information. These findings clarify the role of the insula and OFC in affective and executive processing, specifically in WM conflict resolution.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".