ArticleExperimental brain research2022
The neural mechanisms underlying the modulation of attentional deployment on emotional stability.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Emotional stability, the change of emotion response among situations, was associated with mental illness, such as depression. The current study aimed to explore the modulation of attentional deployment on emotional stability by combining functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and a sequential risk-taking task. During the task, participants were asked to open a series of boxes consecutively and decided when to stop. Each box contained a reward, except one containing a devil to zero reward in the trial. When participants stopped, both collected gains and missed chances were revealed. The attentional deployment was manipulated during the outcome feedback, i.e., inducing participants to focus on the good part (GF context) or the bad part (MF context) of the decision outcome. Besides, the Control context was also set, in which the attentional deployment was not manipulated. The behavioral results showed that the emotional stability was stronger in GF context relative to MF and Control contexts. At the neural level, with outcomes getting better, activations of ventral striatum (VS) and superior frontal gyrus (SFG) increased faster in GF context than that in MF and Control contexts. In addition, in GF context, the changing of SFG activation with outcomes getting better was associated with emotional stability. The current study highlighted that focusing on the good part of decision outcomes could enhance emotional stability effectively and SFG played a vital role in this process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35412127What 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.