Cited by 76Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

Uncertainty is associated with increased selective attention and sustained stimulus processing

Open access
Dieterich, Raoul, Endrass, Tanja, Kathmann, Norbert·2016·Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience

Abstract

Uncertainty about future threat has been found to be associated with an overestimation of threat probability and is hypothesized to elicit additional allocation of attention. We used event-related potentials to examine uncertainty-related dynamics in attentional allocation, exploiting brain potentials' high temporal resolution and sensitivity to attention. Thirty participants performed a picture-viewing task in which cues indicated the subsequent picture valence. A certain-neutral and a certain-aversive cue accurately predicted subsequent picture valence, whereas an uncertain cue did not. Participants overestimated the effective frequency of aversive pictures following the uncertain cue, both during and after the task, signifying expectancy and covariation biases, and they tended to express lower subjective valences for aversive pictures presented after the uncertain cue. Pictures elicited increased P2 and LPP amplitudes when their valence could not be predicted from the cue. For the LPP, this effect was more pronounced in response to neutral pictures. Uncertainty appears to enhance the engagement of early phasic and sustained attention for uncertainly cued targets. Thus, defensive motivation related to uncertainty about future threat elicits specific attentional dynamics implicating prioritization at various processing stages, especially for nonthreatening stimuli that tend to violate expectations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/s13415-016-0405-8

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Studies have reported increased late positive potential (LPP) amplitude for uncertain aversive cues compared with certain safe cues in threat-of-shock designs.

    “studies have reported increased LPP amplitude for uncertain aversive cues compared with certain safe cues in threat-of-shock designs (21, 31)”
  • The early LPP increases in response to cues for threat of shock and during resolution of uncertainty, and decreases to signify uncertainty-related avoidance.

    “The early LPP increases in response to cues for threat of shock (Bublatzky, & Schupp, 2012) and during resolution of uncertainty (Dieterich, Endrass, & Kathmann, 2016), and decreases to signify uncertainty-related avoidance (Gole, Schäfer, & Schienle, 2012).”

    From Uncertainty increases neural indices of attention in obsessive-compulsive disorder (2017) · cites this paper as Dieterich, Endrass, & Kathmann, 2016

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dieterich, R., Endrass, T., & Kathmann, N.
Affiliations
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
Corresponding author
Dieterich, Raoul
Venue
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
Published
2016-01-25
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
447-456
ISSN
  • 1530-7026 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-135X
OpenAlex
W2262446438
Cited by
76
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5
FWCI
3.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
uncertainty, expectancy bias, attention allocation, selective attention, sustained attention, P2 component, late positive potential, defensive motivation, threat prediction, aversive stimuli
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Brain, Brain Mapping, Electroencephalography, Emotions, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Male, Photic Stimulation, Visual Perception, Uncertainty, Young Adult

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