Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40289354›Full record

ArticlePsychophysiology2025

Emotion-Guided Attention Impacts Deliberate Multi-Evidence Emotion-Related Perceptual Decision-Making.

Hilary H T Ngai, Jingwen Jin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychophysiology, 2025. 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

2 authors.

Hilary H T NgaiDepartment of Psychology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR China.ORCID 0009-0001-4041-2208
Jingwen JinDepartment of Psychology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR China.ORCID 0000-0001-9227-6837

Funding

University of Hong Kong, Seed Fund for Basic Research 104005616.106012.30200.301.01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emotion-guided endogenous attention (e.g., attending to fear) may play a crucial role in determining how humans integrate emotional evidence from various sources when assessing the general emotional tenor of the environment. For instance, what emotion a presenter focuses on can shape their perception of the overall emotion of the room. While there is an increasing interest in understanding how endogenous attention affects emotion perception, existing studies have largely focused on single-stimulus perception. There is limited understanding of how endogenous attention influences emotion evidence integration across multiple sources. To investigate this question, human participants (N = 40) were invited to judge the average emotion across an array of faces ranging from fearful to happy. Endogenous attention was manipulated by instructing participants to decide whether the face array was "fearful or not" (fear attention), "happy or not" (happy attention). Eye movement results revealed an endogenous attention-induced sampling bias such that participants paid more attention to extreme emotional evidence congruent with the target emotion. Computational modeling revealed that endogenous attention shifted the decision criterion to be more conservative, leading to reduced target-category decisions. These findings unraveled the cognitive and computational mechanisms of how endogenous attention impacts the way we gather emotional evidence and make integrative decisions, shedding light on emotion-related decision-making.

Indexed as

AttentionDecision MakingEmotionsFacial ExpressionFacial RecognitionSocial PerceptionAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adultattentioncomputational modelingemotionensemble perceptioneye movementperceptual decision‐making

Identifiers

PMID40289354
PMCPMC12034915

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.