Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29949112›Full record

ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2018

Age differences in the neural response to emotional distraction during working memory encoding.

Maryam Ziaei, George Samrani, Jonas Persson

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Maryam ZiaeiSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
George SamraniAging Research Center (ARC), Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm University, Tomtebodavägen 18A, 17165, Solna, Sweden.
Jonas PerssonAging Research Center (ARC), Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm University, Tomtebodavägen 18A, 17165, Solna, Sweden. jonas.persson.1@ki.se.
Karolinska Institutet · SEStockholm University · SEUniversity of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Age-related declines in attention and working memory (WM) are well documented and may be worsened by the occurrence of distracting information. Emotionally valenced stimuli may have particularly strong distracting effects on cognition. We investigated age-related differences in emotional distraction using task-fMRI. WM performance in older adults was lower for emotional compared with neutral distractors, suggesting a disproportional impairment elicited by emotional task-irrelevant information. Critically, older adults were particularly distracted by task-irrelevant positive information, whereas the opposite pattern was found for younger adults. Age groups differed markedly in the brain response to emotional distractors; younger adults activated posterior cortical regions and the striatum, and older adults activated frontal regions. Also, an age by valence interaction was found for IFG and ACC, suggesting differential modulation of attention to task-relevant emotional information. These results provide new insights into age-related changes in emotional processing and the ability to resolve interference from emotional distraction.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAgingAttentionBrainBrain MappingEmotionsFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMemory, Short-TermMiddle AgedYoung AdultAgingEmotional distractionfMRIInterference resolutionWorking memory

Identifiers

PMID29949112
PMCPMC6105189
OpenAlexW2808535111

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.