ArticleBrain and behavior2023
Impact of aversive affect on neural mechanisms of categorization decisions.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Approach-avoidance conflict recruits lateral frontoparietal and cinguloinsular networks in a predator-prey game setting.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
- Dynamic threat-reward neural processing under semi-naturalistic ecologically relevant scenarios.Human brain mapping · 2024Article
- Impact of aversive affect on neural mechanisms of categorization decisions.Brain and behavior · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMany theories contend that evidence accumulation is a critical component of decision-making. Cognitive accumulation models typically interpret two main parameters: a drift rate and decision threshold. The former is the rate of accumulation, based on the quality of evidence, and the latter is the amount of evidence required for a decision. Some studies have found neural signals that mimic evidence accumulators and can be described by the two parameters. However, few studies have related these neural parameters to experimental manipulations of sensory data or memory representations. Here, we investigated the influence of affective salience on neural accumulation parameters. High affective salience has been repeatedly shown to influence decision-making, yet its effect on neural evidence accumulation has been unexamined.
methodsThe current study used a two-choice object categorization task of body images (feet or hands). Half the images in each category were high in affective salience because they contained highly aversive features (gore and mutilation). To study such quick categorization decisions with a relatively slow technique like functional magnetic resonance imaging, we used a gradual reveal paradigm to lengthen cognitive processing time through the gradual "unmasking" of stimuli.
resultsBecause the aversive features were task-irrelevant, high affective salience produced a distractor effect, slowing decision time. In visual accumulation regions of interest, high affective salience produced a longer time to peak activation. Unexpectedly, the later peak appeared to be the product of changes to both drift rate and decision threshold. The drift rate for high affective salience was shallower, and the decision threshold was greater. To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of an experimental manipulation of sensory data or memory representations that changed the neural decision threshold.
conclusionThese findings advance our knowledge of the neural mechanisms underlying affective responses in general and the influence of high affective salience on object representations and categorization decisions.
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.