4.5 Review

A Systematic Review on the Interaction between Emotion and Pseudoneglect

期刊

SYMMETRY-BASEL
卷 13, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/sym13081531

关键词

emotion; perceptual asymmetries; lateralization; visual neglect; attention bias

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of University and Research [RM120172B77EE5F8]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A systematic review of empirical evidence on the behavioral effects of emotion on pseudoneglect showed mixed results, indicating that emotion may indeed modulate pseudoneglect but the direction of the effect remains unclear.
Background: A large body of research has shown brain asymmetries in spatial attention. Specifically, there is an attention-processing advantage for the left visual field in healthy, right-handed subjects, known as pseudoneglect. Several studies have revealed that emotions modulate this basic spatial phenomenon, but the direction of the effect is still unclear. Here we systematically review empirical evidence on the behavioral effects of emotion on pseudoneglect. Methods: We searched through Pubmed, Scopus, PsycINFO, and PsychArticles. Original peer-reviewed articles published until February 2021 were included if they (1) were written in English; (2) were conducted on adults; (3) included at least one task to measure pseudoneglect, and (4) included at least one task with emotional stimuli or employed a measure of emotional state/trait, as they relate to pseudoneglect. Results: Fifteen studies were included, and 784 healthy participants took part in all studies reviewed. Discussion: The results show some evidence of emotion modulation of pseudoneglect, but evidence on the direction of the effect is mixed. We discuss the role of methodological factors that could account for the available findings and the implications for emotion asymmetry hypotheses such as the right-hemisphere hypothesis, the valence-specific hypothesis, as well as neural and arousal frameworks of attention-emotion interactions.

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

4.5
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