Table 1.
Description and main results of studies exploring exogenous attention to emotional stimuli employing CDTD tasks
| Authors | Year | Sample Statistics: F/M (Average Age) | Sample Peculiarities | Ongoing Task | Average Accuracy in the Ongoing Task (0 to 100) | Nature of Distractors | Distractor Categories | Eccentricity of Distractors (Degrees from Fixation) | DVs Recorded | Any DV Signaled Emo > Neu? | Which Emo? | Any Modulating Factor? | First Emo > Neu Effects | Other Emo > Neu Effects | Brain Area Involved |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gilboa‐ Schechtman et al. | 1999 | Sample 1: 6/10 (31.6); Sample 2: 10/7 (34.12) | Sample 1: Social phobics. Sample 2: controls | Perceptual (visual search) | Not specified | Faces | 4: Neutral, Negative, Positive | Peripheral, but not specified | Behavior | Yes, Behavior | Neg & Pos | Emotional content of targets | |||
| Vuilleumier et al. | 2001 | 6/6 (27.7) | Perceptual (faceshouses task) | 84 | Faces | 2: Neutral, Negative | Inner edge when horizontal ≈ 1.6; Inner edge when vertical ≈ 0.625 (eccentricity not reported, but calculated from Figure 1) | Behavior, fMRI | Yes, Behavior & fMRI | Neg | (Mixed whole-brain & ROI strategy in the case of amygdala). Amygdala | ||||
| Pessoa et al. | 2002 | 8/13(22–38) | Perceptual (comparing orientation of bars) | 64 | Faces | 3: Neutral, Negative, Positive | 0 | Behavior, fMRI | No | ||||||
| Anderson et al. | 2003 | 9/3 (22.1 | Scene abstraction (Interior or exterior view of a house?) | 87.3 | Faces | 3: Neutral, Fearful, Disgusted | 0 | Behavior, fMRI | Yes, fMRI | Neg (both Fearful and Disgusted) | (ROI strategy). Amygdala and anterior insula | ||||
| Eimer et al. | 2003 | 7/7 (29.6) | Perceptual (comparing line lengths) | ≈ 97 (exact value not specified) | Faces | 7: Neutral, Hapiness, Anger, Disgust, Fear, Sadness, Surprise | Center at 2.2 | Behavior, ERPs | No | ||||||
| Holmes et al. | 2003 | 11/7 (23.7) | Perceptual (faceshouses task) | 83.4 | Faces | 2: Neutral, Negative | Center at 2.5 | Behavior, ERPs | No | ||||||
| Fenske & Eastwood | 2003 | Exp. 2 (that relevant here): 48 participants, F/M proportion not specified (young adults, age not specified) | Perceptualemotional (recognizing the facial expression present in the target face) | 96.36 | Iconic symbols (≈facial emoticons) | 3: Neutral, Negative, Positive | Peripheral, but not specified (distracter face ‐target/central face gap: 0.76) | Behavior | Yes, Behavior | Neg & Pos | Emotional content of targets | ||||
| Bishop et al. | 2004 | 20/7(18–38) | Anxiety measured (trait and state ) | Perceptual (faceshouses task) | Not specified | Faces | 2: Neutral, Negative | Peripheral, but not specified | Behavior, fMRI | Yes, fMRI | Neg | Anxiety | (ROI strategy). Amygdala | ||
| Carretié et al. | 2004 | 28/9 (21.54) | Perceptual (frame color changes) | 95.97 | Scenes | 3: Neutral, Negative, Positive | 0 | ERPs | Yes, ERPs | Neg & Pos | ≈100 ms (posterior P1) | anterior P2, N2 | (Whole brain strategy). Occipital lobe, ACC | ||
| Harris & Pashler | 2004 | Exp. 2 (that relevant here): 124 participants, F/M proportion not specified (young adults, age not specified) | Digit categorization | Not specified | Words | 2: Neutral, Negative | 0 | Behavior | Yes, Behavior | Neg | Distracter repetition | ||||
| Carretié et al. | 2005 | 23/8(21.35) | Fear of spiders (used as negative stimuli) | Digit categorization | 97.8 | B/W silhouettes | 2: Neutral, Negative | Inner edges at 17.2 horizontally, 12.35 vertically | Behavior, ERPs | Yes, ERPs | Neg | ≈150 ms (anterior P150) | P500 | (Whole brain strategy). vmPFC, precuneus, STG, PCC | |
| Pessoa et al. | 2005 | 7/13 (20–40) | Perceptual (comparing orientation of bars) | 3 levels: Low difficulty (92), Medium (84), High (67) | Faces | 2: Neutral, Negative | 0 | Behavior, fMRI | Yes, fMRI | Neg | Task difficulty | (Mixed whole brain & ROI strategy in the case of amygdala). Amygdala | |||
| Erthal et al. | 2005 | Exp. 1: 12/12 (21); Exp. 2: 18/18 (21.3); Exp. 3: 0/30 (22.3) | Sample 3: under the effects of alcohol | Perceptual (comparing orientation of bars) | Exp. 1: Low difficulty (93.6), Medium (86.7), High (78.7). Exp. 2: Low (94.9), Very High (61.1). Exp. 3: Low (94), Medium (90), High (82). | Scenes | 2: Neutral, Negative | 0 | Behavior | Yes, Behavior | Neg | Task difficulty | |||
| Schimmack | 2005 | Exp. 1: 63/63 (20); Exp. 2: 30/30 (young adults, age not specified). | Exp. 1: Arithmetical. Exp. 2: Perceptual (discriminating location of a line). | 93 | Scenes | 7 unspecific: Neutral, Negative (3 arousal levels), Positive (3 arousal levels); 5 specific: Snakes, Faces (same or opposite sex), Bodies (same or opposite sex) | 0 | Behavior | Yes, Behavior | Neg & Pos | Target arousal | ||||
| Keil et al. | 2005 | 7/4 (23.33) | Perceptual (detecting dot patterns) | 90.7 | Scenes | 2: Neutral, Negative | Center at 3.9 | Behavior, ERPs | Yes, Behavior & ERPs | Neg | Steady state paradigm: posterior SSVEP | ||||
| Holmes et al. | 2006 | 8/4 (31) | Perceptual (comparing line lengths) | 77.8 | Faces | 2: Neutral, Negative | 0 | Behavior, ERPs | Yes, ERPs | Neg | ≈190 ms (anterior P2) | ||||
| Hahn et al. | 2006 | Exps. 2 and 3 (those relevant here): Sample 1 Exp 2: 6/8 (22.8); Sample 2 Exp 2: 7/7 (65.2); Sample 1 Exp 3: 8/7 (22.4); Sample 2 Exp 3: 8/7 (64.5) | Sample 1: young participants. Sample 2: old participants | Perceptualemotional (Exp. 2: detecting any discrepant face within an array of faces; Exp. 3: visual search of a specified facial expression within an array of faces) | From ≈ 89 to ≈ 100 (acc. provided only graphically) | Iconic symbols (≈facial emoticons) | 3: Neutral, Negative, Positive | Peripheral, but not specified | Behavior | Yes, Behavior | Neg & Pos | Age | |||
| Horstmann & Bauland | 2006 | Exp.1 (that relevant here): 6/6 (25) | Perceptualemotional (recognizing the facial expression present in the target face) | 96 | Iconic symbols (≈facial emoticons) | 3: Neutral, Negative, Positive | Center at 1.2 | Behavior | Yes, Behavior | Neg | Emotional content of targets | ||||
| Straube et al. | 2006 | Sample 1: 11/0 (20.9); Sample 2: 12/0 (21.3) | Sample 1: spider phobics. Sample 2: controls | Perceptual (line orientation discrimination) | ≈ 94 | Scenes | 3: Neutral, negative (phobia‐related) | 0 | Behavior, fMRI | Yes, fMRI | Neg | Phobia | (ROI strategy). Amygdala | ||
| Bishop et al. | 2007 | 10/8(27) | Anxiety measured (trait and state ) | Perceptual (letter detection) | 2 levels:Low difficulty: 93.65. High difficulty: 66.55 | Faces | 2: Neutral, Negative | 0 | Behavior, fMRI | Yes, Behavior & fMRI | Neg | Task difficulty and anxiety (only in fMRI, in the latter case) | (ROI strategy). Amygdala and STS for state anxiety, dlPFC (MFG) and ACC for trait anxiety | ||
| Aquino & Arnell | 2007 | 6/7 (19.7) | Digit categorization | 92.9 | Words | 4: Neutral, Threatrelated, Schoolrelated, Sexual | 0 | Behavior | Yes, Behavior | Sexual | |||||
| Silvert et al. | 2007 | 7/3 (18–30) | Perceptual (a variant of the houseface paradigm in which orientation is also manipulated) | 2 levels: Low difficulty: ≈94, High: ≈ 80 (acc. provided only graphically) | Faces | 4: (Neutral, Negative) x (Easy, Difficult) | Center at 6.5 | Behavior, fMRI | Yes, fMRI | Neg | Task difficulty ( | (ROI strategy). Amygdala | |||
| Mitchell et al. | 2007 | 9/6 (26.1) | Easy task: perceptual (case categorization); Difficult: lexical (syllable discrimination) | 2 levels: Low difficulty (94.6), High (84.6) | Faces | 2: Neutral, Negative | 0 | Behavior, fMRI | Yes, Behavior & fMRI | Neg | Task difficulty (only in fMRI) | (Mixed whole brain & ROI strategy in the case of amygdala). Superior occipital cortex, ventral lateral prefrontal cortex, ACC. | |||
| Hsu & Pessoa | 2007 | 11/9 (19–29) | Perceptual (letter detection) | 3 levels: Low difficulty (98), High "salience" (84.1), High "attentional load" (81.8). | Faces | 2: Neutral, Negative | Center at 5 | Behavior, fMRI | Yes, fMRI | Neg | Task difficulty (only in late trials) | (ROI strategy). Amygdala | |||
| Eimer & Kiss | 2007 | 8/8 (29) | Perceptual (luminance changes in the fixation cross) | 97.5 | Faces | 2: Neutral, Negative | Peripheral, but not specified | Behavior, ERPs | Yes, ERPs | Neg | ≈200 ms (N2pc) | ||||
| Okon‐Singer et al. | 2007 | Exp. 1: 15/13 (25.07). Exp.2: 32/5 (22.86) | Perceptual (letter discrimination) | Exp. 1: 96.3; Exp. 2: 91.5 | Scenes | 2: Neutral, Negative | Exp. 1: Center at 7.5. Exp 2: 0. | Behavior | Yes, Behavior | Neg | Attentional resources availability | ||||
| Lim et al. | 2008 | 12/17 (18–34) | Perceptual (letter detection) | 2 leves: Low difficulty (90), High (72.9) | Faces | 4: (Neutral, Negative) x (shock conditioned, unconditioned) | 0 | Behavior, fMRI | Yes, Behavior & fMRI | Neg & Shock conditioned | Task difficulty (only in fMRI) | (ROI strategy). Amygdala, ACC, fusiform gyrus, middle frontal gyrus; superior parietal lobule | |||
| Müller et al. | 2008 | 5/5 (20–26) | Perceptual (detecting moving & flickering squares) | 64.13 (during the first second) | Scenes | 3: Neutral, Negative, Positive | 0 | Behavior, ERPs | Yes, Behavior & ERPs | Neg & Pos | steady state paradigm: posterior SSVEP | ||||
| Alpers et al. | 2009 | 19/0 (22.5) | Spider phobia | Perceptual (animal identification) | 91.06 | B/W silhouettes | 2: Neutral, negative (phobia‐related) | 0 | Behavior, fMRI | Yes, fMRI | Neg | (ROI strategy). mPFC, occipital lobe, hippocampus, insula, and thalamic structures. | |||
| Carretié et al. | 2009 | 26/4 (23.89) | Fear of spiders and cockroaches (used as negative stimuli) | Digit categorization | 87.94 | B/W static and moving silhouettes | 4: (Neutral, Negative) x (Static, Dynamic) | Inner edge ≈ 7 (moving) or ≈ 10.5 (static) | Behavior, ERPs | Yes, Behavior & ERPs | Neg Dynamic | ≈100 ms (posterior P1) | |||
| MacNamara & Hajcak | 2009 | 33/16 (young adults, age not specified) | Anxiety measured (trait and state ) | Perceptual (a variant of faceshouses task employing scenes instead of faces) | 90.42 | Scenes | 2: Neutral, Negative | Peripheral, but not specified | Behavior, ERPs | Yes, Behavior | Neg | ||||
| De Cesarei et al. | 2009 | 16/16 (25.33) | Perceptual (detecting a gap in a frame) | 95 | Scenes | 9: (Neutral, Negative, Positive) x (0 eccentricity, 8.2 eccentricity, 16.4 eccentricity) | 3 eccentricities: center at 0, 8.2, or 16.4 | Behavior, ERPs | Yes, ERPs | Neg & Pos | Eccentricity | >400 ms (LPP) | |||
| Nummenmaa et al. | 2009 | Exp. 3 (that relevant here): 10/5 (23) | Motor‐perceptual (sacadde to the new location of the fixation cross) | 92 (fixation < 4º from target) | Scenes | 3: Neutral, Negative, Positive | Inner edge ≈ 2.6 | Behavior (ocular) | Yes, Behavior | Neg | |||||
| Buodo et al. | 2010 | Sample 1: 12/0 (22.5); Sample 2: 12/0 (23.23) | Sample 1: blood phobics. Sample 2: controls | Perceptual (luminance changes in the fixation cross) | 96.94 | Scenes | 3: Neutral, Negative related to blood phobia, Negative unrelated. | Inner edges 5.4 | Behavior, ERPs | Yes, Behavior & ERPs | Neg (both types) | Phobia and distracter relaton to phobia | ≈200 ms (N2pc) | ||
| Pourtois et al. | 2010 | 0/1 (30) | Epileptic patient (electrodes implanted) | Perceptual (faceshouses task) | 97 | Faces | 2: Neutral, Negative | Peripheral, but not specified | Behavior, Intracranial ERPs | Yes, Behavior & intracraneal ERPs | Neg | ≈210 ms | (ROI strategy ‐ intracraneal recording‐). Amygdala | ||
| MacNamara & Hajcak | 2010 | Sample 1: 13/2 (33.53). Sample 2: 11/4 (31.73) | Sample 1: GAD. Sample 2: controls | Perceptual (a variant of faceshouses task employing scenes instead of faces) | 84.8 | Scenes | 2: Neutral, Negative | Peripheral, but not specified | Behavior, ERPs | Yes, Behavior | Neg | GAD | |||
| Calvo & Nummenmaa | 2011 | 24/12 (19–23) | Perceptual (which side the happy face appeared?) | Ocular R: 81; Manual R: 94 | Faces | 6: Neutral, Sad, Angry, Fearful, Disgusted, Surprised | Inner edges 2.5 | Behavior (ocular and manual) | Yes, Behavior (ocular and manual) | All (Disgust & surprise to the greatest extent) | |||||
| Hodsoll et al. | 2011 | Exps. 1–4 (those relevant here): 6/5 (27), 16/8 (26); 9/7 (26); 6/4 (26) | Perceptual (detecting target face inclination) | Exp. 1: 94; Exp. 2: 95.33; Exp. 3: 95.67; Exp. 4: 94 % | Faces | 3: Neutral, Negative, Positive (taking the 5 experiments as a whole) | Center at 2.86 | Behavior | Yes, Behavior | Neg & Pos | |||||
| Huang et al. | 2011 | Exp. 1: 11/12 (18–27). Exp. 3: 23 participants, F/M proportion not specified (18–25) | Perceptual (detecting the location of a dot within the target face) | Exp. 1: 99.15; Exp. 3: 94.5 | Iconic symbols (≈facial emoticons) | 3: Neutral, Negative, Positive | Center at 4.77 | Behavior | Yes, Behavior | Neg | Attentional resources availability | ||||
| Carretié et al. | 2011 | 21/5 (22.73) | Digit categorization | 88.43 | Scenes | 3: Neutral, Fearful, Disgusting | 0 | Behavior, ERPs | Yes, Behavior & ERPs | Disgusting | ≈200 ms (anterior P2) | (Whole brain strategy). Occipital lobe. | |||
| Wiens et al. | 2011 | 7/7 (24) | Perceptual (letter detection) | 88.5 | Scenes | 3: Neutral, Negative | 0 | Behavior, ERPs | Yes, ERPs | Neg | >400 ms (LPP) | ||||
| Barratt & Bundesen | 2012 | Exp. 1: 26/14 (21.1). Exp. 2: 15/15 (35.7) | Exp. 1: Perceptualemotional (recognizing the facial expression present in the target face). Exp. 2: Perceptual (discriminating letters). | Exp. 1: 93.32; Exp.2: 95.53 | Iconic symbols (≈facial emoticons) | 2: Neutral, Negative | Center of distracters at 7.8 | Behavior | Yes, Behavior | Neg | Emotional content of targets and nature of the task | ||||
| Carretié et al. | 2012 | 26/10(24) | Digit categorization | 94.5 | Scenes | 9: (Neutral, Negative, Positive) x (High Spatial Frequency, Intact, Low Spatial Frequency) | 0 | Behavior, fMRI | Yes, Behavior & fMRI | Neg & Pos | Spatial frequency | (ROI strategy). Intraparietal sulcus (DAN), middle frontal gyrus (VAN & DAN) | |||
| Feng et al. | 2012 | 13/13(21.69) | Perceptual (detecting color frame) | 91.86 | Scenes | 4: Neutral, Negative, Positive (non erotic), Erotic | 0 | Behavior, ERPs | Yes, Behavior & ERPs | Erotic | ≈200 ms (anterior P2) | N2, P3 | |||
| Lichtenstein‐ Vidne et al. | 2012 | 50 participants in two experiments, F/M proportion not specified (young adults, age not specified) | Perceptual (indicating the location of the target, which was emotional in some conditions) | 94 in both experiments | Scenes | 3: Neutral, Negative, Positive | Peripheral, but not specified | Behavior | Yes, Behavior | Neg | |||||
| Nordström & Wiens | 2012 | 16/15 (27) | Perceptual (letter detection) | ≈94.5 | Scenes | 2: Neutral, Negative | 0 | Behavior, ERPs | Yes, ERPs | Neg | ≈240 ms (LPN) | LPP | |||
| Trauer et al. | 2012 | 12/11 (23.4) | Perceptual (detecting moving & flickering squares) | 92.3 | Words | 3: Neutral, Negative, Positive | 0 | Behavior, ERPs | Yes, ERPs | Neg | ≈240 ms (anterior P2) | ||||
| Junhong, H. et al. | 2013 | Exp. 1: 24/11 (20.5). Exp. 2: 14/12 (20.8) | Lexical processing | Exp 1: Low difficulty (96.4), High (89.4). Exp 2: Low (96.6), High (94.5) | Faces | 3: Neutral, Negative, Positive | Peripheral, but not specified | Behavior, ERPs | Yes, Behavior & ERPs | Neg & Pos (behavior), Neg (ERPs) | ≈170 ms (anterior P2) | ||||
| López‐Martín et al. | 2013 | Sample 1: 0/20 (8–13); Sample 2: 0/20 (8–13) | Sample 1: ADHD, sample 2: controls | Digit categorization | Sample 1: 86; Sample 2: 90 | Scenes | 3: Neutral, Negative, Positive | 0 | Behavior, ERPs | Yes, Behavior & ERPs | Neg & Pos | ADHD | ≈250 ms (N2ft) | ||
| Syrjänen & Wiens | 2013 | 17/17 (24.5) | Perceptual (letter detection) | Not specified | Scenes | 3: Neutral, Negative, Positive | 0 | ERPs | Yes, ERPs | Neg & Pos | Gender | >400 ms (LPP) | |||
| McSorley & van Reekum | 2013 | 14/6 (19–21) | Motor‐perceptual (sacadde to the new location of the fixation cross) | 81 (fixation < 2º from target) | Scenes | 3: Neutral, Negative, Positive | Inner edges at 1 | Behavior (ocular) | Yes, Behavior | Neg | |||||
| Schönwald & Müller | 2013 | 13/7 (23.85) | Perceptual (detecting moving & flickering squares) | 69.36 | Scenes | 2: Neutral, Negative | 0 | Behavior, ERPs | Yes, Behavior & ERPs | Neg | ≈280 ms (EPN) | LPP | (Whole brain strategy). V1, lateral occipital gyrus, left occipito‐parietal areas, middle occipital, angular gyrus, lateral occipital temporal and superior temporal gyrus. | ||
| Carretié et al. | 2013a | 26/4 (19.65) | Digit categorization | 93.29 | B/W silhouettes | 2: Neutral, Negative | 3 eccentricities: inner border of the distracter at 0, 11.29, or 30.06 | Behavior, ERPs | Yes, ERPs | Neg | ≈240 ms (N2ft) | (ROI strategy). vPFC. | |||
| Carretié et al. | 2013b | 28/6 (22.79) | Digit categorization | 88 | Faces vs Scenes | 6: (Neutral, Negative, Positive) x (Faces, Scenes) | 0 | Behavior, ERPs | Yes, Behavior & ERPs | Neg & Pos | ≈180 ms (anterior P2 & N170) | (ROI strategy). Faces: Fusiform and IPL. Scenes: precentral gyrus. | |||
| Sussman et al. | 2013 | 82/67(18.33) | Worry measured | Perceptual (dot color detection) | Not specified | Scenes | 6: (Neutral, Negative, Positive) x (Low, High arousal) | Peripheral, but not specified | Behavior | Yes, Behavior | Neg | Worry |
Note. Studies in which authors are underlined are those providing information enough to be included in meta-analyses (see the main text). DV = dependent variable