Hearing fearful prosody impairs visual working memory maintenance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interference by distractors has been associated multiple times with diminished visual and auditory working memory (WM) performance. Negative emotional distractors in particular lead to detrimental effects on WM. However, these associations have only been seen when distractors and items to maintain in WM are from the same sensory modality. In this study, we investigate cross-modal interference on WM. We invited 20 participants to complete a visual change-detection task, assessing visual WM (VWM), while hearing emotional (fearful) and neutral auditory distractors. Electrophysiological activity was recorded to measure contralateral delay activity (CDA) and auditory P2 event-related potentials (ERP), indexing WM maintenance and distractor salience respectively. At the behavioral level, fearful prosody didn't decrease significantly working memory accuracy, compared to neutral prosody. Regarding ERPs, fearful distractors evoked a greater P2 amplitude than neutral distractors. Correlations between the two ERP potentials indicated that P2 amplitude difference between the two types of prosody was associated with the difference in CDA amplitude for fearful and neutral trials. This association suggests that cognitive resources required to process fearful prosody detrimentally impact VWM maintenance. That result provides a piece of additional evidence that negative emotional stimuli produce greater interference than neutral stimuli and that the cognitive resources used to process stimuli from different modalities come from a common pool.
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".