Approach motivation and narrowed attentional breadth following self-control: investigating the role of asymmetrical frontal activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People often inhibit or override their dominant response tendencies in order to successfully complete tasks. This process is referred to as self-control. While considering people's approach-motivated tendencies, Schmeichel, Crowell and Harmon-Jones (2016) determined that completing self-control was associated with increased relative left frontal cortical activity and Harmon-Jones and Gable (2009) determined that greater left frontal cortical activity was associated with narrowed attention. Based on these findings, it was predicted that greater left frontal activity would result in narrowed attention after exercising self-control. The purpose of the current study was then to examine whether people's attentional breadth would relate to their frontal asymmetry after completing an incongruent color Stroop task (i.e., indicating the ink colors of mismatching color words), as this is a common self-control manipulation used in past research. Attentional breadth, or whether people focused on the 'forest' or the 'trees', was indicated by reaction time differences between when the two target letters (T, H) were presented in the global and local levels of the hierarchical Navon letter stimuli. An equal number of trials were presented both before and after the Stroop task. The change in attentional breadth (i.e., post Stroop - pre Stroop) was associated with people's naturally occurring approach motivation - as indexed by their Behavioural Activation System (BAS) scores; attentional breadth following the self-control task was negatively related to BAS. As well, the breadth of attention and self-report measures were related to frontal alpha asymmetry (i.e., lateralized cortical activity in the frontal regions) during an initial resting session as well as during the pretrial period between the offset of fixation and the onset of the Navon letter stimuli. The present findings provide further evidence that both motivation and self-control can influence attentional breadth, and give us a better understanding of the role of asymmetrical frontal cortical activity. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2018
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) | 0.002 | 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".