4.6 Article

Suppressing Emotions Impairs Subsequent Stroop Performance and Reduces Prefrontal Brain Activation

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060385

关键词

-

资金

  1. Voluntary Academic Society, Basel, Switzerland
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation [100014_138630]
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [100014_138630] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Abundant behavioral evidence suggests that the ability to self-control is limited, and that any exertion of self-control will increase the likelihood of subsequent self-control failures. Here we investigated the neural correlates underlying the aftereffects of self-control on future control processes using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). An initial act of self-control (suppressing emotions) impaired subsequent performance in a second task requiring control (Stroop task). On the neural level, increased activity during emotion suppression was followed by a relative decrease in activity during the Stroop task in a cluster in the right lateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) including the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), an area engaged in the effortful implementation of control. There was no reliable evidence for reduced activity in the medial frontal cortex (MFC) including the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), which is involved in conflict detection processes and has previously also been implicated in self-control. Follow-up analyses showed that the detected cluster in the right lateral PFC and an area in the MFC were involved in both the emotion suppression task and the Stroop task, but only the cluster in the right lateral PFC showed reduced activation after emotion suppression during the Stroop task. Reduced activity in lateral prefrontal areas relevant for the implementation of control may be a critical consequence of prior self-control exertion if the respective areas are involved in both self-control tasks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据