Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26029089›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2015

Syllogisms delivered in an angry voice lead to improved performance and engagement of a different neural system compared to neutral voice.

Kathleen W Smith, Laura-Lee Balkwill, Oshin Vartanian, Vinod Goel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact, top 97% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Kathleen W SmithDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Health, York University Toronto, ON, Canada.
Laura-Lee BalkwillHumanist Canada, Ottawa, ON Canada.
Oshin VartanianDepartment of Psychology, University of Toronto at Scarborough Toronto, ON, Canada.
Vinod GoelDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Health, York University Toronto, ON, Canada ; IRCCS Fondazione Ospedale San Camillo Venice, Italy.
Ospedale generale di zona San Camillo Treviso · ITUniversity of Toronto · CAYork University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the fact that most real-world reasoning occurs in some emotional context, very little is known about the underlying behavioral and neural implications of such context. To further understand the role of emotional context in logical reasoning we scanned 15 participants with fMRI while they engaged in logical reasoning about neutral syllogisms presented through the auditory channel in a sad, angry, or neutral tone of voice. Exposure to angry voice led to improved reasoning performance compared to exposure to sad and neutral voice. A likely explanation for this effect is that exposure to expressions of anger increases selective attention toward the relevant features of target stimuli, in this case the reasoning task. Supporting this interpretation, reasoning in the context of angry voice was accompanied by activation in the superior frontal gyrus-a region known to be associated with selective attention. Our findings contribute to a greater understanding of the neural processes that underlie reasoning in an emotional context by demonstrating that two emotional contexts, despite being of the same (negative) valence, have different effects on reasoning.

Indexed as

angerauditoryemotionfMRIreasoningsadness

Identifiers

PMID26029089
PMCPMC4428274
OpenAlexW1562378430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.