Dissocier les effets facilitants et les effets délétères de l’émotion sur la cognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Emerging evidence suggests that emotion can have both enhancing and impairing effects on various cognitive processes. These opposing effects can be identified at different levels, both within the same cognitive process and across different processes, as well as at more general levels, such as in the case of the response to stress. The aim of the present review is to discuss recent advances in the mechanisms underlying the enhancing and impairing effects of emotion on different aspects within the same process (e.g., episodic memory) and across specific cognitive processes (perception vs. episodic memory, working memory vs. episodic memory), as well as in the context of the response to stress.Emerging Evidence The available evidence points to a number of aspects that dissociate the opposing effects of emotion on cognition. (i) Opposing effects within episodic memory can be attributed to different accounts, involving dissociation at different levels: central vs. peripheral trade-off, high vs. low prioritization of information processing, and items encoding vs. the formation of complex associations. (ii) The opposing effects across cognitive processes, such as perception and episodic memory, can be linked to dissociation between immediate/impairing vs. long-term/enhancing effects, which are mediated by common and dissociable neural mechanisms, involving bottom-up and top-down processes. (iii) Finally, in the larger context of the response to stress, emotional stress can lead to opposing effects depending on the degree, context, and controllability of the stressors.Conclusions 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. These issues are important for understanding mechanisms of emotion-cognition interactions not only in healthy functioning but also in emotional disturbances, where these opposing effects of emotion are exacerbated and deleterious.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".