Cited by 154Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAesthetic Perception and AnalysisEmotion and Mood Recognition

Attention and emotion: Does rating emotion alter neural responses to amusing and sad films?

Hutcherson, C.A., Goldin, P.R., Ochsner, K.N., Gabrieli, J.D., Barrett, L. Feldman, Gross, J.J.·2005·NeuroImage

Abstract

Functional neuroimaging of affective systems often includes subjective self-report of the affective response. Although self-report provides valuable information regarding participants' affective responses, prior studies have raised the concern that the attentional demands of reporting on affective experience may obscure neural activations reflecting more natural affective responses. In the present study, we used potent emotion-eliciting amusing and sad films, employed a novel method of continuous self-reported rating of emotion experience, and compared the impact of rating with passive viewing of amusing and sad films. Subjective rating of ongoing emotional responses did not decrease either self-reported experience of emotion or neural activations relative to passive viewing in any brain regions. Rating, relative to passive viewing, produced increased activity in anterior cingulate, insula, and several other areas associated with introspection of emotion. These results support the use of continuous emotion measures and emotionally engaging films to study the dynamics of emotional responding and suggest that there may be some contexts in which the attention to emotion induced by reporting emotion experience does not disrupt emotional responding either behaviorally or neurally.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.04.028

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ratings were collected separately rather than during scanning because a reporting task influences neural responses to visual emotional stimulation.

    “Ratings were conducted separately rather than during scanning, because a reporting task influences neural responses to visual emotional stimulation (48,49), but repeated viewing of emotional stimuli has only a negligible effect on self-reported emotional feelings.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 70 · Cited by 154

Authors
Hutcherson, C. A., Goldin, P. R., Ochsner, K. N., Gabrieli, J. D., Barrett, L. F., & Gross, J. J.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Boston College (US)
Corresponding author
Hutcherson, C.A.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-09
Volume
27
Issue
3
Pages
656-668
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2159794757
Cited by
154
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Aesthetic Perception and Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
Keywords
anterior cingulate cortex, insula
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Brain, Cerebral Cortex, Emotions, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Motion Pictures, Oxygen, Wit and Humor as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review