ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2017
Neurocognitive assessment of emotional context sensitivity.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- How Emotions Influence Cognitive Control: A Within-Subject Investigation.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Slow Wave Sleep and Emotion Regulation in Adolescents With Depressive Symptoms: An Experimental Pilot Study.Journal of sleep research · 2025Article
- Difficulties in implicit emotion regulation of the deaf college students: An ERP study.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Information-based TMS to mid-lateral prefrontal cortex disrupts action goals during emotional processing.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Subjectively salient faces differ from emotional faces: ERP evidence.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The role of healthy emotionality in the relationship between fear of COVID-19 and mental health problems: a cross-sectional study.Cognitive processing · 2022Article
- Psychometric validation of the Persian version of the Emotional Style Questionnaire.Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Biological signatures of emotion regulation flexibility in children: Parenting context and links with child adjustment.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2021Article
- Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) Augments the Effects of Gamified, Mobile Attention Bias Modification.Frontiers in neuroergonomics · 2021Article
- The Tension Between Cognitive and Regulatory Flexibility and Their Associations With Current and Lifetime PTSD Symptoms.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- The late positive potential as a neurocognitive index of emotion regulatory flexibility.Biological psychology · 2019Article
- 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 · 2019Article
- Understanding Emotion Inflexibility in Risk for Affective Disease: Integrating Current Research and Finding a Path Forward.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.