The Impact of Emotional Information on Task Performance in Unimodal vs. Cross-modal Paradigms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emotional stimuli can disrupt or enhance task performance, and this may depend on the sensory modality involved. In unimodal paradigms (e.g. visual task-irrelevant stimuli during a visual task) emotional stimuli frequently produce distraction effects; it is unclear how emotion affects task performance in cross-modal paradigms (e.g. auditory stimuli during a visual task). This project explored task performance as a function of sensory modality and emotional valence. In Study 1, participants (N=50) completed a visual task in the presence of task-irrelevant negative and neutral images and sounds. Response times and accuracy were disrupted in the presence of visual but not auditory emotional stimuli, particularly when the target and task-irrelevant stimulus appeared simultaneously. In Study 2, participants (N=38) completed an equivalent auditory task. Response times and accuracy were enhanced in the presence of auditory emotional stimuli at the first timepoint but disrupted at later timepoints. There was no effect for visual stimuli.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".