ReviewNeural plasticity2021
Negative and Positive Bias for Emotional Faces: Evidence from the Attention and Working Memory Paradigms.
Review in Neural plasticity, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Neural activities during the Processing of unattended and unseen emotional faces: a voxel-wise Meta-analysis.Brain imaging and behavior · 2022Pooled it
- The influence of emotional scenes and attentional bias on visual working memory: Insights from a 3-back task.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- The Effects of Personality, Anxiety and Depression on the Attentional Processing of Emotional Faces.Journal of cognition · 2026Article
- Mapping EEG Metrics to Human Affective and Cognitive Models: An Interdisciplinary Scoping Review from a Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Early or late distractions hurt working memory differently depending on how long you look.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Neurophysiological Basis of Emotional Face Perception and Working Memory Load in a Dual-Task MEG Study.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Is individual attentional bias positive or negative? It depends on trait anxiety.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2025Article
- Competition between emotional faces in visuospatial working memory.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2025Article
- Anxiety symptoms are differentially associated with facial expression processing in boys and girls.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2024Article
- The impact of stimulus format and presentation order on social working memory updating.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2024Article
- The differential impact of face distractors on visual working memory across encoding and delay stages.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
- Alterations in working memory maintenance of fearful face distractors in depressed participants: An ERP study.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- Dynamic and static angry faces influence time perception differently-Evidence from ERPs.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Comparing emotional working memory in adolescents and young adults with and without depressive symptoms: developmental and psychopathological differences.BMC psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Visual attention and visual working memory (VWM) are two major cognitive functions in humans, and they have much in common. A growing body of research has investigated the effect of emotional information on visual attention and VWM. Interestingly, contradictory findings have supported both a negative bias and a positive bias toward emotional faces (e.g., angry faces or happy faces) in the attention and VWM fields. We found that the classical paradigms-that is, the visual search paradigm in attention and the change detection paradigm in VWM-are considerably similar. The settings of these paradigms could therefore be responsible for the contradictory results. In this paper, we compare previous controversial results from behavioral and neuroscience studies using these two paradigms. We suggest three possible contributing factors that have significant impacts on the contradictory conclusions regarding different emotional bias effects; these factors are stimulus choice, experimental setting, and cognitive process. We also propose new research directions and guidelines for future studies.
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.