Search

For humans, it is vitally important to rapidly detect and process threatening signals regardless of whether stimuli occur at fixation or in the periphery. However, it is unknown whether eccentricity affects early neuronal electrophysiological responses to fear-conditioned stimuli. We examined early event-related potentials (ERPs) of the electroencephalogram (EEG) to fear-conditioned faces to address this question. Participants (N = 80) were presented with faces, either paired with an aversive (CS+) or neutral sound (CS-), at central or peripheral positions. We ensured constant central fixation using online eye-tracking but directed attention to either centrally or peripherally presented faces. Manipulation checks showed successful fear-conditioning (i.e., on average lower ratings in valence and higher ratings in arousal and perceived threat) and successful shifts of visuospatial attention indexed by high task performance and pre-stimulus alpha lateralization of the EEG spectra. We observed a generally increased P1 to fear-conditioned faces regardless of presentation location. An N170 difference between fear-conditioned and neutral stimuli was found but was restricted to the central location and depended on the effectivity of fear-conditioning. A similar effect was observed for the early posterior negativity (EPN). Trait anxiety was not related to differential ERP responses to CS+ versus CS- faces for any ERP component. These findings suggest that the P1 indexes early responses to centrally and peripherally presented fear-conditioned faces. Subsequent stages are modulated by the spatial location of the stimuli. This suggests different stages of neural processing of fear-conditioned faces depending on their spatial location. Finally, our results question the hypothesis that trait anxiety in healthy participants is related to altered visual processing of fear-conditioned faces.

A large body of research suggests that early event-related potentials (ERPs), such as the P1 and N1, are potentiated by attention and represent stimulus amplification. However, recent accounts suggest that the P1 is associated with inhibiting the irrelevant visual field evidenced by a pronounced ipsilateral P1 during sustained attention to peripherally presented stimuli. The current EEG study further investigated this issue to reveal how lateralized ERP findings are modulated by face and emotional information. Therefore, participants were asked to fixate the center of the screen and pay sustained attention either to the right or left visual field, where angry or neutral faces or their Fourier phase-scrambled versions were presented. We found a bilateral P1 to all stimuli with relatively increased, but delayed, ipsilateral P1 amplitudes to faces but not to scrambles. Explorative independent component analyses dissociated an earlier lateralized larger contralateral P1 from a later bilateral P1. By contrast, the N170 showed a contralateral enhancement to all stimuli, which was most pronounced for neutral faces attended in the left hemifield. Finally, increased contralateral alpha power was found for both attended hemifields but was not significantly related to poststimulus ERPs. These results provide evidence against a general inhibitory role of the P1 but suggest stimulus-specific relative enhancements of the ipsilateral P1 for the irrelevant visual hemifield. The lateralized N170, however, is associated with stimulus amplification as a function of facial features.

Fearful facial expressions are prioritized across different stages of information processing as reflected by early, mid-latency, and late components of event-related brain potentials (ERP). Trait anxiety has been proposed to modulate these responses, but it is yet unclear how such modulations depend on feature-based attention. In this preregistered study (N = 80), we investigated the effects of trait anxiety on ERP differences between fearful and neutral faces across three different tasks. Participants had to discriminate either the orientation of lines overlaid onto the faces, the gender of the face, or the emotional expression, thus increasing attention to emotionally relevant facial features across the tasks. Fearful versus neutral faces elicited increased P1 and N170 amplitudes across tasks and potentiated amplitudes when attention was directed to faces (early posterior negativity [EPN]) or the expression (EPN and late positive potential). Higher trait anxiety was related to smaller EPN differences between fearful and neutral faces during the perceptual discrimination task. This early relationship suggests reduced instead of amplified processing of fearful faces for high trait anxious participants under perceptual distraction.

The temporal dynamics of top-down voluntary and bottom-up driven emotional attention are a matter of debate. Both emotion and task-relevance have been shown to affect the early posterior negativity (EPN) and the late positive potential (LPP) during the processing of emotional pictures, whereas there are mixed findings related to interactions of emotion and task-relevance. In this preregistered study, we used Bayesian models to test this interplay between emotion and task-relevance. Participants (N = 104) were presented negative, neutral, and positive International Affective Picture System (IAPS) pictures, and block-wise were asked to respond either to negative, neutral, or positive pictures, rendering one stimulus category task-relevant and the remaining stimuli task-irrelevant. Bayesian models showed evidence for the absence of interactions between task-relevance and emotion. Furthermore, models showed parallel emotion and task effects for the EPN and late stages of the LPP. Additional interactive effects were found during an early LPP interval (400 to 600 ms), with increased LPP amplitudes when emotion was rendered task-relevant. Taken together, the results revealed distinct but parallel temporal onsets of task-relevance and emotion effects, followed by task and emotion interactions in the early LPP. Thus, based on this high-powered study employing Bayesian analysis, evidence is provided that interactions between task-relevance and emotion do not emerge before the LPP time window. These results further inform theories proposing early parallel and late interactive processes of the emotional salience of stimuli and top-down attention.

In item-method directed forgetting, worse memory performance occurs for to-be-forgotten (TBF) than for to-be-remembered (TBR) items. However, recently TBF items have been found to be recognized more accurately than uninformative (UI) items not associated with any specific task. Here, we compare ERPs elicited by cues signaling the remember or the forget instruction with those elicited by uninformative cues. Participants were presented with a series of complex pictures, each followed by a symbolic TBR, TBF, or UI cue. On a yes-no recognition test, accuracy was higher for TBR than for both TBF and UI items. However, TBF items were recognized more accurately than UI items. ERPs elicited by the TBR cue were larger than ERPs elicited by both TBF and UI cues at the frontal P2, the late frontal negativity, and the late parietal positivity complex. This is consistent with more attention capture, selective rehearsal, and long-term memory encoding of TBR. In contrast, both TBF and UI cues induced a larger frontal N2 than TBR cues. Critically, TBF elicited a larger late right-frontal positivity than both UI and TBR cues and a larger late parietal positivity than UI cues. Moreover, the late right-frontal positivity was correlated with better recognition performance. It may therefore reflect processing orientation rather than inhibition per se. Results suggest that, when compared to UI cues, both TBR and TBF cues are processed actively. Distinct processing is seen at right frontal and centroparietal positive ERPs that may mediate better subsequent recognition of TBF than of UI items.