Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38672018›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2024

Independence Threat or Interdependence Threat? The Focusing Effect on Social or Physical Threat Modulates Brain Activity.

Guan Wang, Lian Ma, Lili Wang, Weiguo Pang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Guan WangThe School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China.
Lian MaSchool of Computer Science and Technology, Huaiyin Normal University, Huaian 223300, China.
Lili WangSchool of Education Science, Huaiyin Normal University, Huaian 223300, China.ORCID 0000-0002-6671-6664
Weiguo PangThe School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China.ORCID 0000-0001-6702-8030

Funding

Jiangsu Province Educational Science Planning 2021 Annual Project C-b/2021/01/28
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe neural basis of threat perception has mostly been examined separately for social or physical threats. However, most of the threats encountered in everyday life are complex. The features of interactions between social and physiological threats under different attentional conditions are unclear.

methodThe present study explores this issue using an attention-guided paradigm based on ERP techniques. The screen displays social threats (face threats) and physical threats (action threats), instructing participants to concentrate on only one type of threat, thereby exploring brain activation characteristics.

resultsIt was found that action threats did not affect the processing of face threats in the face-attention condition, and electrophysiological evidence from the brain suggests a comparable situation to that when processing face threats alone, with higher amplitudes of the N170 and EPN (Early Posterior Negativity) components of anger than neutral emotions. However, when focusing on the action-attention condition, the brain was affected by face threats, as evidenced by a greater N190 elicited by stimuli containing threatening emotions, regardless of whether the action was threatening or not. This trend was also reflected in EPN.

conclusionsThe current study reveals important similarities and differences between physical and social threats, suggesting that the brain has a greater processing advantage for social threats.

Indexed as

action threatemotion threatERPphysical threatsocial threat

Identifiers

PMID38672018
PMCPMC11047893

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.