ArticleExperimental brain research2017
Mood induction effects on motor sequence learning and stop signal reaction time.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combining Fluoxetine and rTMS in Poststroke Motor Recovery: A Placebo-Controlled Double-Blind Randomized Phase 2 Clinical Trial.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2019Trial
- Article
- Volitional control of individual neurons in the human brain.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2021Article
- HIIT the Road Jack: An Exploratory Study on the Effects of an Acute Bout of Cardiovascular High-Intensity Interval Training on Piano Learning.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Working Memory Load and Negative Picture Processing: Neural and Behavioral Associations With Panic, Social Anxiety, and Positive Affect.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The neurobiological theory of positive affect proposes that positive mood states may benefit cognitive performance due to an increase of dopamine throughout the brain. However, the results of many positive affect studies are inconsistent; this may be due to individual differences. The relationship between dopamine and performance is not linear, but instead follows an inverted "U" shape. Given this, we hypothesized that individuals with high working memory capacity, a proxy measure for dopaminergic transmission, would not benefit from positive mood induction and in fact performance in dopamine-mediated tasks would decline. In contrast, we predicted that individuals with low working memory capacities would receive the most benefit after positive mood induction. Here, we explored the effect of positive affect on two dopamine-mediated tasks, an explicit serial reaction time sequence learning task and the stop signal task, predicting that an individual's performance is modulated not only by working memory capacity, but also on the type of mood. Improvements in explicit sequence learning from pre- to post-positive mood induction were associated with working memory capacity; performance declined in individuals with higher working memory capacities following positive mood induction, but improved in individuals with lower working memory capacities. This was not the case for negative or neutral mood induction. Moreover, there was no relationship between the change in stop signal reaction time with any of the mood inductions and individual differences in working memory capacity. These results provide partial support for the neurobiological theory of positive affect and highlight the importance of taking into account individual differences in working memory when examining the effects of positive mood induction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.