ArticleScientific reports2026
The role of ambiguous valence, origin, and activation in behavioral and eye-tracking measurements during N-back task.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates how emotionally ambiguous words can influence performance in the N-back task. In two experiments, we measured differences in behavior (performance accuracy and reaction times) and management of visual attention (eye-tracking measurement: number of fixations, mean duration of fixation) for ambiguous and unambiguous words. We hypothesized that words ambiguous on one of three emotional spaces - valence (positivity and negativity), origin (automaticity and reflectiveness), and activation (arousal and subjective significance) - would increase accuracy in the N-back task (Experiment 1), but also elicit more and longer fixations (Experiment 2) compared to the unidimensional, unambiguous words. The behavioral hypotheses were confirmed for words of ambiguous valence and origin, but not for activation ambiguity. Furthermore, all eye-tracking hypotheses were confirmed, finding differences between control words and all ambiguous groups of words. Our findings further show that ambiguity may be found in emotional spaces other than valence (i.e., origin), which may significantly influence our cognitive functioning.
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.