Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28828734›Full record

ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2017

Neurocognitive assessment of emotional context sensitivity.

Sarah Myruski, George A Bonanno, Olga Gulyayeva, Laura J Egan, Tracy A Dennis-Tiwary

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Heterogeneity of the Anxiety-Related Attention Bias: A Review and Working Model for Future Research.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2019
    Article
  13. Review
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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah MyruskiThe Graduate Center, The City University of New York, New York, NY, USA.
George A BonannoTeachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Olga GulyayevaHunter College, The City University of New York, New York, NY, USA.
Laura J EganSt. Francis College, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Tracy A Dennis-TiwaryThe Graduate Center, The City University of New York, New York, NY, USA. tracy.dennis@hunter.cuny.edu.
City University of New York · USColumbia University · USHunter College · USSt. Francis College · USThe Graduate Center, CUNY · US

Funding

Clinical and Translational Science CenterUL1TR000457 · NCATS · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI IMPERATO-MCGINLEY, JULIANNE L · 2012 to 2016
$46.0M
Basic and Translational Research Center for Reducing Health DisparitiesG12MD007599 · NIMHD · HUNTER COLLEGE · PI ANGULO, JESUS A · 2012 to 2017
$14.6M
Attention Bias Modification for Anxiety: A Randomized Control Trial with BiomarkeSC1MH104907 · NIMH · HUNTER COLLEGE · PI DENNIS, TRACY A · 2014 to 2017
$1.4M
National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences TR000457NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000457NIMHD NIH HHS G12 MD007599NIMH NIH HHS SC1 MH104907
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sensitivity to emotional context is an emerging construct for characterizing adaptive or maladaptive emotion regulation, but few measurement approaches exist. The current study combined behavioral and neurocognitive measures to assess context sensitivity in relation to self-report measures of adaptive emotional flexibility and well-being. Sixty-six adults completed an emotional go/no-go task using happy, fearful, and neutral faces as go and no-go cues, while EEG was recorded to generate event-related potentials (ERPs) reflecting attentional selection and discrimination (N170) and cognitive control (N2). Context sensitivity was measured as the degree of emotional facilitation or disruption in the go/no-go task and magnitude of ERP response to emotion cues. Participants self-reported on emotional flexibility, anxiety, and depression. Overall participants evidenced emotional context sensitivity, such that when happy faces were go stimuli, accuracy improved (greater behavioral facilitation), whereas when fearful faces were no-go stimuli, errors increased (disrupted behavioral inhibition). These indices predicted emotional flexibility and well-being: Greater behavioral facilitation following happy cues was associated with lower depression and anxiety, whereas greater disruption in behavioral inhibition following fearful cues was associated with lower flexibility. ERP indices of context sensitivity revealed additional associations: Greater N2 to fear go cues was associated with less anxiety and depression, and greater N2 and N170 to happy and fear no-go cues, respectively, were associated with greater emotional flexibility and well-being. Results suggest that pleasant and unpleasant emotions selectively enhance and disrupt components of context sensitivity, and that behavioral and ERP indices of context sensitivity predict flexibility and well-being.

Indexed as

Facial ExpressionInhibition, PsychologicalAdolescentAdultAnxietyAttentionDepressionElectroencephalographyEmotionsEvoked PotentialsExecutive FunctionFacial RecognitionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedContext sensitivityEmotionEvent related potential (ERP)Regulatory flexibility

Identifiers

PMID28828734
PMCPMC5718166
OpenAlexW2746879291

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.