Attention and emotion: Does rating emotion alter neural responses to amusing and sad films?
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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.”
From Emotions promote social interaction by synchronizing brain activity across individuals (2012) · cites this paper as [48]
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