Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jun 25.
Published in final edited form as: Behav Brain Res. 2021 Mar 29;408:113265. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2021.113265

The Controllability of Aversive and Neutral Pictures:An Event-Related Potential Study

Elizabeth A Bauer 1, Gina Thomas 2, Annmarie MacNamara 1
PMCID: PMC8102394  NIHMSID: NIHMS1688428  PMID: 33794224

Abstract

Control over physically aversive stimuli may reduce stress, arousal and physiological responses to these stimuli. Nonetheless, avoidance of emotionally aversive stimuli/excessive attempts to control negative emotion might alternatively increase the salience of these stimuli. Here, we used a novel paradigm to examine the effect of controllability on the processing of aversive and neutral pictures (using the late positive potential, LPP) and response uncertainty (using the post-imperative negative variation, PINV). Participants (n = 48) were told that they could press a button to terminate the presentation of an aversive or neutral picture, but this was only true during some blocks of the experiment and not others. Results showed that the LPP was larger for control compared to no control blocks and that this was driven by larger LPPs to aversive pictures during the first control block, but only for participants who had started the task in a no control block. Therefore, knowing that aversive stimuli might not always be controllable (i.e., a prior experience of uncontrollability) appears to increase the motivational salience of these stimuli once control becomes possible. In addition, uncontrollability increased both the early and late PINV, and the late PINV was larger for the second compared to the first control block. As such, the current study provides the first evidence that the PINV can be elicited using aversive and neutral pictures and suggests functional differentiation between the early and late portions of the PINV. Results support the utility of this novel paradigm for examining control over emotional stimuli.

Keywords: late positive potential (LPP), post-imperative negative variation (PINV), control, event-related potential (ERP), International Affective Picture System (IAPS), emotion

1. Introduction

The knowledge that one can control aversive stimuli reduces arousal and may even completely mitigate stress elicited by an impending threat (Overmier & Seligman, 1967). For example, humans and rodents who can press a button to prevent or stop electric shock show less physiological reactivity in anticipation of and when exposed to the stimulus (Diener, Struve, et al., 2009). But how does control over stimuli affect the processing of emotionally aversive stimuli that are not physically threatening? Avoidance of aversive stimuli and excessive attempts to control negative emotion have been linked to the development and maintenance of anxiety (Chawla & Ostafin, 2007; Gray, 1970). Therefore, escape behaviors, such as pressing a button to terminate exposure to an emotionally aversive stimulus, could result in increased reactivity to these stimuli, particularly when these behaviors fail. Understanding how control over stimuli influences the processing of emotionally aversive stimuli and how this may be moderated by prior experiences of control could yield new insights into healthy and disordered emotion processing.

In the lab, control over aversive stimuli can be examined using an S1-S2 paradigm. Classic S1-S2 paradigms consist of a cue stimulus (S1) that predicts the onset of an upcoming target stimulus (S2) to which participants must respond (e.g., by pressing a button; Walter et al., 1964). To study control over stimuli in the context of an impending threat, a neutral S1 stimulus is followed by an S2 stimulus that signals the beginning of a period of time during which participants can make a response to prevent the onset of or terminate an aversive stimulus (e.g, an aversive tone or electric shock). If participants do not make the correct response, the aversive stimulus is delivered. However, in an alternate version of this task, participants may at times be unable to prevent the aversive stimulus, even after making the correct response. That is, participants are able to prevent the delivery of the aversive stimulus by making the correct response during certain (“control”) blocks, whereas in other (“no control”) blocks, delivery of the aversive stimulus is not contingent on participant response (Diener, Struve, et al., 2009; Rockstroh et al., 1979).

Responses to these changing control contingencies can be examined using an event-related potential (ERP) referred to as the post-imperative negative variation (PINV). The PINV is a frontally-maximal ERP component that emerges approximately 400 ms after S2 onset (i.e., once it becomes possible to make a response) and persists for several seconds. The PINV is larger (i.e., more negative) for uncontrollable versus controllable aversive stimuli, and is thought to reflect response uncertainty/attempts to resolve task ambiguity in the context of learned response-outcome contingencies (Diener, Kuehner, et al., 2009; Diener, Struve, et al., 2009). Additionally, some work suggests that the PINV may be moderated by prior experiences of control over stimuli (Diener, Struve, et al., 2009; Elbert et al., 1982; Rockstroh et al., 1979). For example, Diener, Struve, and colleagues (2009) found that participants who started the experiment with control over stimuli (i.e., shock delivery was contingent on participant response) showed an increased PINV in no control blocks; however, for these participants, the PINV returned to baseline levels following restitution of control over stimuli. On the other hand, participants who started the experiment in a no control block (i.e., shock delivery was not contingent on participant response) continued to show elevated PINVs even during subsequent control blocks.

Although some prior work has found that the PINV may be moderated by prior experiences of control over stimuli (e.g., Diener, Struve, et al., 2009), other work has not observed an effect of prior control over stimuli on the PINV. Using an S1-S2 paradigm with aversive tones that were controllable in some blocks but not in others, Kathmann and colleagues (1990) did not find that the sequence of controllable and uncontrollable blocks moderated the PINV; rather, they observed elevated PINVs in conditions of no control versus control overall. Furthermore, the PINV was increased in response to contingency change more broadly (e.g., unexpected compared to expected control trials). Therefore, prior control over stimuli may not always inoculate individuals against subsequent loss of control (as measured by the PINV), and the PINV may reflect contingency evaluation and adaptation more broadly, rather than only response to loss of control over stimuli.

While control over physically uncomfortable or threatening stimuli may be adaptive in some scenarios, avoidance of – or excessive attempts to control – stimuli that are emotionally aversive but not physically threatening, such as disturbing images or thoughts, may be maladaptive. Indeed, efforts to avoid engaging with aversive stimuli are thought to maintain or even increase the salience of these stimuli (Craske, 2003), and may play a key role in the development and maintenance of anxiety disorders and other affective psychopathology (Chawla & Ostafin, 2007). To date, however, controllability S1-S2 paradigms have exclusively used physically aversive or auditory stimuli (e.g., shock or aversive tones; Diener et al., 2010; Diener, Struve, et al., 2009; Elbert et al., 1982; Kathmann et al., 1990; Rockstroh et al., 1979), and none have used pictorial stimuli. Pictorial stimuli are the most common type of stimuli used to examine emotion-processing in ERP tasks, and understanding how control affects response to pictorial stimuli would facilitate connections between the as-of-yet distinct control-over-stimuli and emotion-processing ERP literatures and lay the groundwork for future work in clinical samples.

One ERP that has been used extensively to assess the processing of emotional pictures is the late positive potential (LPP; Hajcak et al., 2010). The LPP is a centroparietally maximal ERP component that begins around 300 ms following stimulus onset and is larger for emotional compared to neutral pictures (e.g., Cuthbert et al., 2000). Furthermore, the LPP is believed to measure the motivational salience of stimuli (Lang et al., 1997; Lang & Bradley, 2010). For example, the LPP is larger for pictures of one’s own relatives (Grasso & Simons, 2011) and one’s own name (Tacikowski & Nowicka, 2010), as well as to pictures of cigarettes when shown to smokers (Minnix et al., 2013). While the LPP has yet to be examined in response to controllable versus uncontrollable aversive stimuli, prior work found that starting a picture viewing task in an uncertain context (i.e., while listening to an unpredictable auditory tone) compared to a certain context (i.e., no auditory tone) led to larger LPPs to aversive pictures for the duration of the task (Imburgio & MacNamara, 2019). Therefore, starting without control over stimuli might have a similar effect on the motivational salience of stimuli.

To assess the effects of control and initial experiences of control on picture processing, we developed a modified S1-S2 paradigm. On each trial, participants viewed an aversive or neutral picture (S1); partway through picture presentation, a border surrounding this picture changed from red to green, indicating the beginning of the response period (S2). Participants were told that once the border changed from red to green, they would be able to press a button to terminate picture presentation; however, unannounced to participants, this was only true during “control” blocks and not during “no control” blocks. At the end of each block, participants rated their sense of control and their mood. Participants were pseudorandomly assigned to begin the task in a control or no control block.

We used the LPP to examine how control over stimuli might affect picture processing during the S1 and S2 periods. In addition, we assessed the S2-locked PINV to examine response uncertainty. We assessed reaction time and, for control blocks, we assessed success rate, defined as the percentage of trials during which participants pressed the correct button/the picture was successfully removed. We hypothesized that the LPP would be larger for aversive pictures presented in no control compared to control blocks, during both the S1 and S2 periods (Imburgio & MacNamara, 2019). Further, we hypothesized that the PINV would be larger for no control compared to control blocks (Diener, Struve, et al., 2009; Kathmann et al., 1990). We also expected that, compared to participants who started the task in a no control block, participants who started the task in a control block would show smaller (i.e., more positive) PINV amplitudes during restitution of control following a period of uncontrollability (Diener, Struve, et al., 2009). We also expected to observe reduced success rates and longer reaction times for participants who began the task in a no control block compared to participants who began the task in a control block (Diener, Struve, et al., 2009).

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Participants

Fifty undergraduate students provided written informed consent and participated in the experiment for course credit. Two participants were excluded because they had insufficient artifact-free trials for EEG analysis (> 50% of trials rejected), leaving 48 participants for analyses (28 female; age M = 19.98, SD = 1.42). Additionally, six participants were excluded from success rate and reaction time analyses because they did not make any responses in the C1 or C2 block (n = 42). Study procedures were in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975 (as revised in 1983) and were approved by the Texas A&M institutional review board.

2.2. Materials

There were 72 aversive and 72 neutral images drawn from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS; Lang et al., 2005) and Emotional Picture Set (EmoPics; Wessa et al., 2010)1. Compared to neutral pictures, normative ratings for aversive pictures were more negative, t(142) = 32.77, p < .001 (aversive M = 2.26, SD = 0.55; neutral M = 5.07, SD = 0.47), and more arousing, t(142) = 28.97, p < .001 (aversive M = 6.16, SD = 0.66; neutral M = 3.07, SD = 0.62). At the end of each block, participants responded to the questions, “How in control do you feel?” and “How negative do you feel?”. Response options ranged from 1 (least in control, least negative) to 5 (extremely in control, extremely negative; Diener, Struve, et al., 2009), with higher numbers indicating greater control and more negative mood.

2.3. Experimental Procedure and Task

The task consisted of a modified, forewarned (S1-S2) reaction paradigm (e.g., Diener, Struve, et al., 2009), depicted in Figure 1. Each trial began with an aversive or neutral picture surrounded by a red border (S1); after 1000 ms, the border changed to green to indicate the beginning of the response period (S2). Following S2 onset (i.e., when the border changed from red to green), the picture remained onscreen for up to an additional 3000 ms, depending on the block type and participant response (details below). Participants were told that following S2 onset they would be able to push the right or left mouse button to make the picture disappear.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

An example of an aversive picture trial from a control block (left) and from a no control block (right). Participants were led to believe they could push a button to make the picture disappear following S2 onset, but this was only true during control blocks. At the end of each block of pictures, participants made mood and control ratings.

There were three different types of blocks, with 48 trials (24 aversive, 24 neutral) in each: control block 1 (C1), control block 2 (C2), and a no control (NC) block. During control blocks, participants could make the picture disappear from the screen immediately by pushing the correct mouse button; however, if the button was not pushed, the picture remained onscreen for 3000 ms. During the no control block, participants did not have control over the picture, which remained onscreen for a fixed duration (500 or 3000 ms, randomly determined), regardless of response.

Within the constraint that each block contained 24 aversive and 24 neutral pictures, picture assignment to block and picture order were randomized. Pictures were viewed once by each participant. Participants were instructed to keep their eyes on the pictures the entire time they were onscreen. The inter-trial interval consisted of a white fixation cross presented in the center of a black background for 2000 to 2500 ms. At the end of each block, participants rated their level of perceived control and negative mood; participants had unlimited time to make these ratings. After the offset of the rating scales (i.e., between each block), participants received a self-timed break. Participants were not informed about the type of block or that in some blocks they would not be able to make the picture disappear from the screen. In line with prior work (Diener, Kuehner, et al., 2009; Diener, Struve, et al., 2009), response button contingencies alternated across blocks and participants were not informed about this change.

Participants were randomly assigned to begin the task in a control or a no control block (started with control, started with no control). Participants in the “started with control” group (n = 25) completed a control block, followed by a no control block and then resumption of control (i.e., C1, NC, C2). Participants in the “started with no control” group (n = 23) completed a no control block, followed by two control blocks (i.e., NC, C1, C2). We based our block structure off of Diener, Struve and colleagues (2009), whose “starts with control” group began with C1, followed by NC and then C2; their “starts with no control” group began with a waiting period, followed by NC and then C1. In this prior work, it was shown that the “starts with no control” participants showed enhanced PINVs not only during the no control block, but also persisting into the subsequent control block. By contrast, the “starts with control” group showed enhanced PINVs during the NC block, but these elevated amplitudes did not persist into the subsequent control block. Therefore, it was important to us to compare how uncontrollability might impact subsequent experiences of control differently for participants who started the task with versus without control. As such, it was necessary that both groups experience a control block following the no control block. We also wanted all participants to complete the same number of control blocks, which resulted in our current task design and is why we opted to not include a waiting block like Diener, Struve and colleagues (2009). Participants were fully debriefed at the end of the experiment. The task was presented using Presentation software (Neurobehavioral Systems Inc., Berkeley, CA).

2.4. EEG Recording and Data Reduction

Continuous EEG recordings were collected using an ActiCap and the ActiCHamp amplifier system (Brain Products GmbH, Gilching Germany). Thirty-two electrode sites were used based on the 10/20 system. The electrooculogram (EOG) was recorded from four facial electrodes: two that were placed approximately 1 cm above and below the right eye, forming a bipolar channel to measure vertical eye movement and blinks and two that were placed approximately 1 cm beyond the outer edges of each eye, forming a bipolar channel to measure horizontal eye movements. Data were digitized at 24-bit resolution and a sampling rate of 1000 Hz.

EEG data were processed offline using Brain Vision Analyzer 2 software (Brain Products GmbH, Gilching Germany). The EEG sampling rate was not downsampled during offline processing. Data were re-referenced to the average of the left and right mastoids (TP9/TP10). Data were segmented for each trial beginning 200 ms prior to trial onset and continuing for 3200 ms, which included the entire time S1 was onscreen (1000 ms) and 2000 ms following S2 onset. Although S2 could be onscreen for up to 3000 ms on some trials, we only examined the first 2000 ms of S2 in order to avoid overlapping with the onset of S1 on some subsequent trials (e.g., control trials on which the correct mouse button was pressed quickly and/or no control trials on which S2 offset at 500 ms). Eye blink and ocular artifacts were corrected using the method developed by Miller, Gratton, and Yee (1988). Artifact analysis was used to identify a voltage step of more than 50.0 μV between sample points, a voltage difference of 300.0 μV within a trial, and a maximum voltage difference of less than 0.50 μV within 100 ms intervals. Trials were also visually examined for remaining artifacts, and data from individual channels containing artifacts were rejected on a trial-to-trial basis. Any residual ocular artifacts were manually rejected during artifact analysis. The LPP was expected to begin following S1 onset and to persist throughout the duration of S2; therefore, in keeping with prior work that has examined changes in picture processing following the onset of other, simultaneously presented stimuli during a single trial (Hajcak et al., 2013), baseline correction was performed using average amplitudes prior to S1 onset (from −200 to 0 ms). Baseline correction for the PINV was also performed using average amplitudes prior to S1 onset (from −200 to 0 ms) to avoid contamination by electrocortical activity occurring in response to S1 picture presentation (Woodman, 2010). A 200 ms baseline was selected based on recommendations that a minimum 100 ms baseline be used and that the baseline be a multiple of 100 ms (Luck & Kappenman, 2016) and in an attempt to balance the pros and cons of longer versus shorter baseline durations (Alday, 2019).

The LPP was scored by averaging amplitudes at CP1, CP2, and Pz between 400-1000 ms (S1 LPP) and 400-1000 ms following S2 onset/1400-2000 ms following S1 onset (S2 LPP; MacNamara et al., 2013). We avoided scoring the LPP between 1000-1400 ms post-S1 onset, because this time period was contaminated with early perceptual ERPs associated with the offset of the red border and the onset of the green border (indicating the beginning of the S2 period). Prior work using principal components analysis has suggested that the PINV might consist of early and late negativities (van den Bosch, 1984); therefore, the PINV was scored by averaging amplitudes at frontal electrode sites FP1 and FP2 between 1400-1800 ms (i.e., 400-800 ms post-S2 onset; S2 early PINV) and between 1800-3000 ms (i.e., 800-2000 ms post-S2 onset; S2 late PINV; Diener, Struve, et al., 2009; Kathmann et al., 1990; Werner et al., 2011). Additionally, within the no control block, only trials with a 3000 ms picture offset were included in analyses to avoid contamination by early perceptual ERPs associated with the (unjittered) offset of the aversive or neutral picture on trials with a 500 ms picture offset.

In keeping with prior work (Diener, Struve, et al., 2009), we did not exclude trials based on participants’ behavior (i.e., success rate). The average number of trials included in the PINV and LPP analyses were as follows: PINV no control neutral M = 11.07 (SD = 1.52); PINV no control aversive M = 11.07 (SD = 1.02); PINV control block 1 neutral M = 21.56 (SD = 3.62); PINV control block 1 aversive M = 21.41 (SD = 4.41); PINV control block 2 neutral M = 21.04 (SD = 4.11); PINV control block 2 aversive M = 21.36 (SD = 3.34); LPP no control neutral M = 11.90 (SD = 0.29); LPP no control aversive M = 11.95 (SD = 0.19); LPP control block 1 neutral M = 23.67 (SD = 0.75); LPP control block 1 aversive M = 23.73 (SD = 0.49); LPP control block 2 neutral M = 23.60 (SD = 0.73); LPP control block 2 aversive M = 23.69 (SD = 0.64).

2.5. Behavior

Misses were calculated as the percentage of trials per block on which participants did not press either mouse button within 3000 ms following S2 offset. Success rate was calculated as the percentage of trials per block on which participants successfully pressed the correct mouse button within 3000 ms following S2 onset (relative to the number of trials in which a mouse button was pressed).

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The LPP, PINV, miss rate, and reaction time were analyzed using a 2 (group: started with no control, started with control) X 3 (block: NC, C1, C2) X 2 (picture type: aversive, neutral) between-and-within-subjects repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Ratings of control and mood, which were assessed at the end of each block, were analyzed using a 2 (group: started with no control, started with control) X 3 (block: NC, C1, C2) ANOVA. Because success rate data were only available for control blocks (i.e., there was no “correct” response possible on no control trials), they were analyzed using a 2 (group: started with no control, started with control) X 2 (block: C1, C2) X 2 (picture type: aversive, neutral) ANOVA. Significant interactions were followed up using ANOVAs and t-tests as appropriate and Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used for violation of sphericity as needed. The internal consistency of the LPP and PINV was assessed using even-odd reliability, in which correlations were performed between averages created separately for even and odd trials. The Spearman-Brown formula was used to correct these correlations (Nunnally, 1978). All analyses were performed using SPSS statistical software version 26.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY).

3. Results

Table 1 presents even-odd reliability coefficients for the LPP and PINV, shown separately for each block. Table 2 presents average control and mood ratings, shown separately for each block and group. Table 3 presents success rates, reaction time and ERP amplitudes, shown separately for each block and group.

Table 1.

Even-odd reliability coefficients for the LPP and PINV

Block
Picture Type NC C1 C2
S1 LPP Neutral .69*** .76*** .62**
Aversive .59** .89*** .82***
S2 LPP Neutral .68*** .69*** .60**
Aversive .56** .90*** .59**
Early PINV Neutral .32 .74*** .59**
Aversive .58** .84*** .50*
Late PINV Neutral .30 .69*** .51*
Aversive .52* .69*** .26
Open in a new tab

Note. NC = No Control Block, C1 = Control Block 1, C2 = Control Block 2.

* =

p < .05

** =

p < .01

*** =

p < .001

Table 2.

Means (SDs) for control and mood ratings.

Started with no control Started with control
NC C1 C2 NC C1 C2
Control Ratings 2.52 (1.12) 3.74 (1.21) 3.39 (1.34) 2.40 (1.41) 3.04 (1.51) 2.80 (1.50)
Mood Ratings 2.78 (0.95) 2.83 (1.03) 2.96 (1.02) 3.36 (0.95) 2.88 (1.01) 3.28 (1.40)
Open in a new tab

Note. NC = No Control Block, C1 = Control Block 1, C2 = Control Block 2. Started with no control refers to participants who started the task in an NC block, followed by a C1 and C2; Started with control refers to participants who started the task in a control block (C1), followed by NC and C2. Higher numbers indicate greater sense of control and greater negative mood.

Table 3.

Means (SDs) for accuracy, reaction time, and ERPs.

Started with no control Started with control
Picture Type NC C1 C2 NC C1 C2
Miss Rate (%) Neutral 17.39 (32.17) 11.05 (25.77) 13.95 (29.61) 26.00 (37.98) 12.00 (26.22) 34.83 (45.50)
Aversive 6.16 (18.84) 4.17 (11.38) 5.07 (13.70) 18.00 (30.49) 5.17 (18.33) 24.50 (37.68)
Success Rate (%) Neutral n/a 84.79 (18.06) 63.41 (41.85) n/a 91.46 (22.36) 41.10 (43.30)
Aversive n/a 86.67 (14.50) 66.08 (41.39) n/a 86.66 (30.18) 56.39(41.76)
Reaction time (ms) Neutral 459.13 (119.41) 385.64 (164.81) 394.00 (145.91) 467.87 (234.32) 459.34 (202.84) 450.09 (205.98)
Aversive 432.27 (94.79) 379.17 (155.30) 445.84 (239.90) 501.90 (227.73) 454.98 (253.48) 441.74 (164.16)
S1LPP (μV) Neutral −2.38 (6.13) −2.12 (5.36) −1.02 (4.87) −1.53 (3.46) −2.37 (3.68) −1.52 (4.04)
Aversive 4.73 (5.94) 6.22 (7.89) 5.17 (5.84) 3.53 (5.18) 2.55 (4.06) 4.91 (5.05)
S2 LPP (μV) Neutral −0.20 (6.48) 1.00 (6.72) 2.21 (4.61) −0.93 (5.83) −1.43 (4.14) −1.15 (4.86)
Aversive 3.86 (6.30) 7.51 (9.01) 5.36 (4.47) 1.98 (5.21) 3.22 (4.95) 5.38 (4.58)
Early PINV (μV) Neutral 0.13 (7.56) 3.00 (11.92) −0.14 (7.49) −0.51 (6.22) 2.41 (4.78) 2.28 (6.27)
Aversive −1.07 (8.08) 3.65 (12.39) 0.95 (6.49) 0.61 (7.29) 3.61 (5.71) 2.27 (6.36)
Late PINV (μV) Neutral −0.75 (9.30) 5.14 (11.94) 0.35 (6.30) −0.74 (6.47) 3.84 (5.73) 2.13 (7.31)
Aversive −1.53 (6.36) 5.27 (9.62) 1.04 (6.59) −0.51 (7.88) 4.43 (4.57) 1.62 (6.37)
Open in a new tab

Note. NC = No Control Block, C1 = Control Block 1, C2 = Control Block 2. Started with no control refers to participants who started the task in an NC block, followed by a C1 and C2; Started with control refers to participants who started the task in a control block (C1), followed by NC and C2.

3.1. Ratings

For control ratings, there was a significant main effect of block, F(1.75, 80.39) = 11.20, p < .001, ηp2 = .20, such that participants reported feeling less in control during NC blocks (M = 2.46, SD = 1.27) compared to C1 blocks (M = 3.38, SD = 1.41), t(47) = 4.82, p < .001, d = 0.68, and NC compared to C2 blocks (M = 3.08, SD = 1.44), t(47) = 3.57, p = .001, d = 0.46 (C1 vs. C2, t[47] = 1.26, p = .22, d = 0.20). The main effect of group, F(1, 46) = 2.18, p = .15, ηp2 = .05, and the interaction between block X group, F(1.75, 80.39) = 1.17, p = .31, ηp2 = .03, did not reach significance for control ratings. For mood ratings, the main effects of block, F(1.61, 74.11) = 1.91, p = .16, ηp2 = .04, group, F(1, 46) = 1.48, p = .23, ηp2 = .03, and their interaction, F(1.61, 74.11) = 1.63, p = .21, ηp2 = .03 did not reach significance.

3.2. Misses and Success Rate

There were more misses (i.e., trials in which the participant did not push a button) for neutral compared to aversive picture trials, F(1, 46) = 5.80, p = .02, ηp2 = .11. There was also a main effect of block on misses, F(2, 92) = 7.23, p = .001, ηp2 = .14. Follow-up paired samples t-tests revealed that participants missed more trials in NC compared to C1 blocks, t(47) = 2.91, p = .005, d = 0.39, as well as in C2 compared to C1 blocks, t(47) = 3.26, p = .002, d = 0.45 (NC vs. C2, t[47] = 0.95, p = .35, d = 0.10).There was also a significant interaction between block X group, F(2, 92) = 4.60, p = .01, ηp2 = .09, such that in C2 blocks, participants who started with control missed more trials than participants who started without control, t(35.45) = 2.29, p = .03, d = 0.65 (NC, t[46] = 1.28, p = .21, d = 0.37; C1, t[46] = 0.19, p = .85, d = 0.05). The main effect of group, F(1, 46) = 2.48, p = .12, ηp2 = .05, as well as the interactions between group X picture type, F(1, 46) = 0.01, p = .93, ηp2 = .00, block X picture type, F(2, 92) = 1.47, p = .24, ηp2 = .03, and group X block X picture type, F(2, 92) = 0.83, p = .44, ηp2 = .02, did not reach significance.

Success rates (out of the total number of trials with a response) were higher on aversive picture trials compared to neutral picture trials, F(1, 40) = 4.64, p = .04, ηp2 = .10. Participants were also successful on a greater percentage of trials during C1 blocks compared to C2 blocks, F(1, 40) = 18.55, p < .001, ηp2 = .32. Additionally, there was a significant interaction between block X picture type, F(1, 40) = 4.21, p = .047, ηp2 = .10, such that participants were successful on a greater percentage of aversive compared to neutral picture trials in C2 blocks, t(41) = 2.37, p = .02, d = 0.20, while success rates between aversive and neutral picture trials in C1 blocks did not significantly differ, t(41) = 0.52, p = .60, d = 0.06. The main effect of group, F(1, 40) = 0.85, p = .36, ηp2 = .02, as well as the interactions between group X block, F(1, 40) = 1.85, p = .18, ηp2 = .04, group X picture type, F(1, 40) = 0.72, p = .40, ηp2 = .02, and group X block X picture type, F(1, 40) = 3.60, p = .07, ηp2 = .08, did not reach significance.

3.3. Reaction Time

There was a main effect of block, F(2, 80) = 5.02, p = .009, ηp2 = .11. Follow-up paired samples t-tests revealed that reaction times were faster in C2 compared to NC blocks, t(41) = 2.93, p = .006 (NC vs. C1, t[41] = 1.89, p = .07, d = 0.28; C1 vs. C2, t[41] = 1.38, p = .18, d = 0.27). The main effects of group, F(1, 40) = 2.03, p = .16, ηp2 = .05, and picture type, F(1, 40) = 0.39, p = .54, ηp2 = .01, as well as the interactions between group X block, F(1, 80) = 2.47, p = .09, ηp2 = .06, group X picture type, F(1, 40) = 0.57, p = .45, ηp2 = .01, block X picture type, F(1.50, 60.11) = 0.58, p = .51, ηp2 = .01, and group X block X picture type, F(1.50, 60.11) = 0.49, p = .56, ηp2 = .01, did not reach significance.

3.4. Late Positive Potential (LPP)

Figure 2A depicts grand-averaged waveforms for neutral pictures at the pooling where the LPP was scored, time-locked to S1 onset, and Figure 2B presents voltage distribution differences between groups for neutral pictures during the S2 LPP. Figure 2C depicts grand-averaged waveforms for aversive pictures at the pooling where the LPP was scored, time-locked to S1 onset, and Figure 2D presents voltage distribution differences between groups for aversive pictures during the S2 LPP.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

The LPP. A) Grand-average waveforms for neutral pictures at the pooling where the LPP was scored, time-locked to S1 onset. Red vertical line demarcates S1 onset, and green line indicates S2 onset. B) Headmaps depicting voltage distribution for neutral pictures in each block for participants who started with no control minus participants who started with control during the S2 LPP. C) Grand-average waveforms for aversive pictures at the pooling where the LPP was scored, time-locked to S1 onset. Red vertical line indicates S1 onset, and green line indicates S2 onset. D) Headmaps depicting voltage distribution for aversive pictures in each block for participants who started with no control minus participants who started with control during the time window of the S2 LPP.

3.4.1. S1

As expected, the LPP was larger for aversive compared to neutral pictures, F(1, 46) = 138.53, p < .001, ηp2 = .75. The main effects of group, F(1, 46) = 0.49, p = .49, ηp2 = .01, block, F(1.70, 78.27) = 1.85, p = .17, ηp2 = .04, as well as the interactions between group X block, F(1.70, 78.27) = 2.03, p = .15, ηp2 = .04, group X picture type, F(1, 46) = 2.60, p = .11, ηp2 = .05, block X picture type, F(2, 92) = 0.21, p = .80, ηp2 = .01, and group X block X picture type, F(2, 92) = 2.39, p = .10, ηp2 = .05, did not reach significance.

3.4.2. S2

The LPP was larger for aversive compared to neutral pictures, F(1, 46) = 89.32, p < .001, ηp2= .66. There was also a main effect of block, F(1.57, 72.28) = 4.46, p = .02, ηp2 = .09, such that LPPs were larger in C1 compared to NC blocks, t(47) = 2.75, p = .008, d = 0.24, as well as in C2 compared to NC blocks, t(47) = 2.92, p = .005, d = 0.40 (C1 vs. C2, t[47] = 0.55, p = .59, d = 0.08). In addition, there was a significant group X block X picture type interaction, F(2, 92) = 3.39, p = .04, ηp2= .07. Follow-up ANOVAs performed separately for each picture type showed an interaction between block X group for aversive pictures only, F(2, 92) = 3.61, p = .03, ηp2 = .07 (neutral pictures, F[1.71, 78.58] = 1.22, p = .30, ηp2 = .03). Follow-up independent samples t-tests revealed that in C1 blocks, participants who started with no control had larger LPPs to aversive pictures compared to participants who started with control, t(46) = 2.07, p = .04, d = 0.59 (NC, t[46] = 1.13, p = .27, d = 0.32; C2, t[46] = 0.02, p = .99, d = 0.03)2. The main effect of group, F(1, 46) = 2.84, p = .10, ηp2 = .06, as well as the interactions between group X block, F(1.57, 72.28) = 1.54, p = .22, ηp2 = .03, group X picture type, F(1, 46) = 0.02, p = .90, ηp2 = .00, and block X picture type, F(2, 92) = 1.90, p = .16, ηp2 = .04, did not reach significance.

3.5. Post Imperative Negative Variation (PINV)

Figure 3A depicts grand-averaged waveforms at the pooling where the PINV was scored, time-locked to S2 onset. Figure 3B presents voltage distribution differences between blocks during the early window of the PINV. Figure 3C presents voltage distribution differences between blocks during the late window of the PINV.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

The PINV. A) Grand-average waveforms at the pooling where the PINV was scored, time-locked to S1 onset. B) Headmaps depicting voltage distribution for NC block minus C1 block, NC block minus C2 block, and C2 block minus C1 block for the early PINV. C) Headmaps depicting voltage distribution for NC block minus C1 block, NC block minus C2 block, and C2 block minus C1 block for the late PINV.

3.5.1. S2 Early

There was a main effect of block, F(2, 92) = 8.26, p = .001, ηp2 = .15, such that pictures presented in NC blocks elicited larger (i.e., more negative) PINVs than those presented in C1 blocks, t(47) = 4.35, p < .001, d = 0.44, and C2 blocks, t(47) = 2.08, p = .043, d = 0.26 (C1 vs. C2, t[47] = 1.89, p = .07, d = 0.25). The main effects of group, F(1, 46) = 0.15, p = .70, ηp2 = .00, and picture type, F(1, 46) = 0.48, p = .49, ηp2 = .01, as well as the interactions between group X block, F(2, 92) = 0.88, p = .42, ηp2 = .02, group X picture type, F(1, 46) = 0.18, p = .67, ηp2 = .00, block X picture type, F(2, 92) = 0.33, p = .72, ηp2 = .01, and group X block X picture type, F(2, 92) = 1.02, p = ..37, ηp2 = .02, did not reach significance.

3.5.2. S2 Late

There was a main effect of block, F(2, 92) = 18.75, p < .001, ηp2 = .30, such that pictures presented in NC blocks elicited larger (i.e., more negative) PINVs than those presented in C2 blocks, t(47) = 2.59, p = .01, d = 0.39, which elicited larger PINVs than those presented in C1 blocks, t(47) = 3.73, p = .001, d = 0.51. The main effects of group, F(1, 46) = 0.02, p = .89, ηp2 = .00, and picture type, F(1, 46) = 0.01, p = .94, ηp2 = .00, as well as the interactions between group X block, F(2, 92) = 0.85, p = .43, ηp2 = .02, group X picture type, F(1, 46) = 0.00, p = .94, ηp2 = .00, block X picture type, F(1.73, 79.58) = 0.09, p = .89, ηp2 = .00, and group X block X picture type, F(1.73, 79.58) = 0.28, p = .72, ηp2 = .01, did not reach significance.3, 4

4. Discussion

The current paradigm was adapted from prior work that examined how control over physically aversive stimuli (e.g., Diener, Struve, et al., 2009) affects an ERP measure of response uncertainty (the PINV) and behavior. To examine how control over stimuli affects the processing of aversive and neutral pictures, we designed a modified S1-S2 paradigm in which participants could push a button to terminate picture presentation. In addition, participants began the task in a block in which they had control over pictures or in a block in which they did not have control, permitting us to examine whether initial experiences of control over stimuli moderated effects of controllability on stimulus processing and response uncertainty.

During the S1 period (i.e., when response was not possible), we found that the LPP was enhanced to aversive (versus neutral) pictures across participants. Additionally, during S2 (i.e., when response was possible), increased LPPs were observed for aversive compared to neutral pictures as well for pictures presented in control compared to no control blocks. Together, these results suggest that prior to being able to control a stimulus (i.e., during S1), the LPP was only sensitive to picture content (i.e., aversive versus neutral) and not conditions of control. However, once control became possible (i.e., during S2), controllability enhanced the LPP to both aversive and neutral stimuli. In addition to being sensitive to the intrinsic significance of stimuli (i.e., picture content) the LPP is also sensitive to modulations of extrinsic significance, such as task relevance (Hajcak & Foti, 2020). For instance, in the context of emotional oddball paradigms, the LPP is larger for emotional compared to neutral pictures and for pictures that are denoted as targets (e.g., pictures that require a response) compared to non-targets (i.e., pictures that do not require a response; Weinberg et al., 2012). Here, during S2, pictures presented in control versus no control blocks may have been more motivationally salient because these pictures functioned like targets – i.e., participants could respond to these pictures and their response would make the picture go off the screen. During no control blocks, smaller LPPs might have reflected less engagement with pictures for which a response would have been inconsequential. Though the current study did not set out to parse potential mechanisms behind control’s effects, this motivational account of control – i.e., that control may increase picture salience via motivation - is in line with prior work. That is, control and motivation are tightly intertwined, because people’s willingness to invest cognitive and physical resources to obtain a desired outcome vary in proportion to the likelihood of attaining that outcome (e.g., Eitam et al., 2013).

In addition to these main effects, we observed an interaction between block, picture type, and group during the S2 portion of the LPP. Participants who started the task without control over stimuli had larger LPPs to aversive pictures in their first control block compared to participants who had started with control over stimuli. Additionally, participants in both groups showed larger LPPs to aversive pictures when a control block immediately followed the no control block (i.e., for the started with control group, C2 > NC; for the started without control group, C1 > NC; Footnote 2). This suggests that the knowledge that stimuli might not be controllable increased the motivational salience of aversive stimuli during subsequent control/once control over stimuli became possible. By the time participants entered their second control block, both groups had experienced uncontrollability, and no group differences were observed.

In prior work, participants who started an S1-S2 paradigm in a block where they could not control aversive stimuli continued to show evidence of response uncertainty (i.e., larger PINVs) even in control blocks (e.g., Diener, Struve, et al., 2009). Here, we observed no group differences and no interaction with group for either the early or late PINV. Diener, Struve, and colleagues (2009) used a stimulus that was physically aversive (i.e., shock), whereas the present stimuli were emotionally, but not physically, aversive. This suggests that initial experiences of uncontrollability over a physically aversive stimulus might lead to more a lasting reduction in perceived control over stimuli.

The PINV has been found to be sensitive to both loss of control (Rockstroh et al., 1979) and shifts in control (Kathmann et al., 1990). Here, we found that the early PINV was larger during blocks of no control versus control. In addition, the later PINV was increased for blocks of no control compared to blocks of control, as well as for the second compared to the first control block. Therefore, both the early and late portions of the PINV appear to reflect increases in information processing related to loss of control over stimuli. However, the later portion of the PINV may also track response uncertainty more generally (i.e., not specific to uncontrollability). There are two reasons that the second control block may have been characterized by greater response uncertainty than the first control block. First, participants who had started with control experienced the second control block immediately following their first (and only) no control block, which likely reduced certainty that responses would always result in picture removal from the screen. Second, for both groups, the second control block involved reversed mapping of mouse button contingencies (i.e., the opposite mouse button became the “correct” button – unbeknownst to participants), which also likely reduced certainty about response certainty. Importantly, modulation of the PINV by uncontrollability/response uncertainty was found for both aversive and neutral pictures and held when using only trials with a response. Therefore, in addition to showing that it is possible to elicit a PINV using pictorial stimuli, our results indicate that emotionally neutral stimuli can elicit a PINV, which was not observed in prior work using auditory stimuli (Elbert et al., 1982; Rockstroh et al., 1979).

In prior work (Diener, Struve, et al., 2009), participants reported increased negative mood following blocks of no control compared to blocks of control; here, we found no effect of block on mood ratings. One possibility is that an uncontrollable, physically aversive stimulus (i.e., shock; Diener, Struve, et al., 2009) might exert a stronger influence on mood, compared to uncontrollable aversive and neutral pictures. In contrast to our mood rating results, control ratings were higher following blocks of control versus no control. However, this effect was evident across participants – i.e., it was not particular to participants who started with control, as had been found in prior research (Diener, Struve, et al., 2009). Therefore, in the current study, participants in both groups seemed to accurately perceive that they were in control during control blocks (and vice versa). This suggests that group effects (e.g., as observed for the LPP) were not confounded with perceived differences in perception of control.

Unlike Diener, Struve, and colleagues (2009), success rate (i.e., percentage of trials responded to correctly out of all trials with a response) was unaffected by prior experiences of control. Instead, we found that participants made more correct button presses during the first block of control compared to the second block of control, as well as for aversive compared to neutral pictures. One possibility is that participants failed to realize that the response button contingency alternated between blocks of control (i.e., from left to right mouse button), and therefore made more errors in the second control block. However, we also observed an interaction between block and picture type such that participants were more successful for aversive versus neutral pictures in the second control block (i.e., success rates did not differ for aversive and neutral pictures in the first control block). This suggests that instead of failing to realize that the response button contingency had changed, participants may have been more motivated to respond correctly earlier on in the task (i.e., in the first control block compared to the second control block); by the second control block, participants may have instead directed their efforts towards responding correctly primarily on aversive picture trials.

Whereas Diener, Struve, and colleagues (2009) observed group differences in reaction time such that participants who experienced uncontrollability prior to controllability had longer reaction times, we did not observe any group differences for reaction time. Rather, we found that – across participants – responses were faster in blocks of control compared to blocks of no control. This suggests that when control over stimuli is possible, participants are motivated to respond quickly to remove both aversive and neutral pictures from the screen. Nonetheless, regardless of how quickly they responded, participants in the current study were only able to shorten the duration of the aversive stimulus presentation rather than avoid the aversive stimulus entirely. As such, the present results can only be assumed to hold for stimuli that are controllable, but not necessarily avoidable (e.g., Diener, Struve, et al., 2009). Future work might wish to examine response to changing response contingencies in the context of aversive pictures when avoidance is possible.

4.1. Limitations and Future Directions

The present study had several limitations. Most importantly, our efforts to keep our experimental design as similar to prior work as possible had some downsides. For example, pictures were onscreen for the full duration of the time windows for the LPP and PINV in NC blocks (because we excluded trials on which pictures offset at 500 ms) but may have been offscreen for portions of the same time windows during C1 and C2 blocks. Though we note that this is in line with prior work, which analyzed all trials for the PINV regardless of whether a response was made (Diener, Struve, et al., 2009), future work may wish to improve the experimental design – including requiring a response on every trial to control for potential motor confounds, particularly for the S2 LPP, where average reaction time overlapped with parts of the S2 LPP time window. The internal consistency for some conditions of the PINV was also low, suggesting it may not have been well-suited to track individual differences in this sample (Hajcak et al., 2017). Future work may wish to increase the number of trials or take other measures to improve internal consistency.

4.2. Conclusions

Overall, our results support the use of this novel S1-S2 paradigm and ERPs to assess the controllability of aversive and neutral pictures. They suggest that control over aversion enhances motivated attention towards pictures, and that for aversive pictures, this may be further increased following a period of initial uncontrollability. Furthermore, our results provide the first evidence of a PINV elicited in response to aversive and neutral pictures, and suggest functional differentiation between the early and late PINV. Future work may wish to test the utility of our paradigm in the context of psychiatric disorders characterized by perceived lack of control and/or excessive attempts to control negative emotion (e.g., Newman & Llera, 2011).

Highlights.

  • We examined how control affects aversive and neutral picture processing.

  • Being able to terminate picture presentation amplified the late positive potential.

  • Starting with no control increased aversive picture salience when control began.

  • No control increased response uncertainty (post-imperative negative variation).

  • Both aversive and neutral pictures can elicit post-imperative negative variation.

Acknowledgments

Annmarie MacNamara was supported by National Institute of Mental Health grant, K23MH105553 during the design of this study and data analyses. Annmarie MacNamara and Elizabeth A. Bauer, and Gina Thomas declared no potential financial or biomedical conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

1.

The pictures selected from the EmoPics and IAPS were as follows, EmoPics aversive: 209, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 220, 222, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 238, 244, 245, 247, 248, 251, 252, 254. EmoPics neutral: 122, 125, 138, 141, 171, 185, 186, 187, 188, 191, 194, 195, 196. IAPS aversive: 1525, 1930, 2120, 2718, 3015, 3016, 3030, 3059, 3064, 3101, 3102, 3103, 3110, 3120, 3160, 3180, 3181, 3195, 3213, 3225, 3230, 3300, 3400, 3530, 6212, 6250, 6312, 6350, 6370, 6520, 6560, 6570, 9040, 9075, 9183, 9250, 9253, 9254, 9265, 9405, 9410, 9413, 9414, 9420, 9421, 9433, 9490, 9561, 9570, 9594, 9635. IAPS neutral: 1450, 1670, 2026, 2036, 2039, 2102, 2191, 2383, 2384, 2392, 2396, 2397, 2411, 2514, 2575, 2745, 7002,7010, 7012, 7019, 7020, 7025, 7026, 7030, 7032, 7033, 7034, 7036, 7037, 7038, 7040, 7041, 7042, 7050, 7059, 7080, 7081, 7090, 7100, 7110, 7130, 7140, 7150, 7175, 7205, 7217, 7234, 7235, 7490, 7491, 7496, 7500, 7504, 7546, 7547, 7560, 7595, 7705, 7950.

2.

While we were primarily focused on between-group comparisons, an alternative way of following up the three-way interaction observed for the S2 LPP would have been to perform within-group comparisons. Using this approach, for participants who started with no control, LPPs were larger for aversive pictures presented in C1 blocks compared to NC blocks, t(22) = 3.43, p = .002, d = 0.47 (NC vs. C2, p = .20; C1 vs. C2, p = .22). For participants who started with control, LPPs were larger for aversive pictures presented in C2 blocks compared to NC blocks, t(24) = 3.18, p = .004, d = 0.69, and C2 compared to C1 blocks, t(24) = 2.63, p = .015, d = 0.45 (NC vs. C1, p = .18).

3.

The condition effects observed for misses might have explained our PINV results; therefore, we also analyzed only trials with responses to see if our PINV results still held. Our results remained unchanged: for the early PINV, there was still a main effect of block, F(1.64, 52.36) = 10.67, p < .001, ηp2 = .25, such that pictures presented in NC blocks elicited larger PINVs than those presented in C1 blocks, t(33) = 5.58, p < .001, d = 0.63, and C2 blocks, t(33) = 2.82, p = .008, d = 0.43 (C1 vs. C2, t[33] = 1.77, p = .09, d = 0.30). No other effects reached significance at the omnibus level for the early PINV, all ps > .09. For the late PINV, there was also a main effect of block, F(1.87, 59.69) = 20.40, p < .001, ηp2 = .39, such that pictures presented in NC blocks elicited larger PINVs than those presented in C2 blocks, t(33) = 3.47, p = .001, d = 0.61, which elicited larger PINVs than those presented in C1 blocks, t(33) = 3.24, p = .003, d = 0.54. No other effects reached significance at the omnibus level for the late PINV, all ps > .36.

4.

Since the PINV is also frequently scored at Fz (e.g., Diener, Struve, et al., 2009), we also conducted analyses with the PINV scored at Fz. We observed similar results as in our original analyses: for the early PINV, we observed a main effect of block, F(2, 92) = 7.54, p = .001, ηp2 = .14, such that the PINV was larger (i.e., more negative) in the NC block compared to the C1 block, t(47) = 4.02, p < .001, d = 0.42, and C2 block, t(47) = 3.12, p = .003, d = 0.44 (C1 vs. C2, p = .64). For the late PINV, we also observed a main effect of block, F(2, 92) = 12.39, p < .001, ηp2 = .21. The PINV was larger in the NC block compared to the C1 block, t(47) = 525,p < .001, d = 0.68, and C2 block, t(47) = 3.74, p = .001, d = 0.65; although the comparison between the C1 and C2 blocks did not reach significance, p = .33, the direction of the difference was the same as we observed when the PINV was scored at FP1 and FP2 (i.e., C2 > C1).

References

  1. Alday PM (2019). How much baseline correction do we need in ERP research? Extended GLM model can replace baseline correction while lifting its limits. Psychophysiology, 56(12), e13451. 10.1111/psyp.13451 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Chawla N, & Ostafin B (2007). Experiential avoidance as a functional dimensional approach to psychopathology: An empirical review. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63(9), 871–890. 10.1002/jclp.20400 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Craske MG (2003). Anxious processes. In Origins of phobias and anxiety disorders: Why more women than men? (pp. 71–98). Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  4. Cuthbert BN, Schupp HT, Bradley MM, Birbaumer N, & Lang PJ (2000). Brain potentials in affective picture processing: Covariation with autonomic arousal and affective report. Biological Psychology, 52(2), 95–111. 10.1016/S0301-0511(99)00044-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Diener C, Kuehner C, Brusniak W, Struve M, & Flor H (2009). Effects of stressor controllability on psychophysiological, cognitive and behavioural responses in patients with major depression and dysthymia. Psychological Medicine, 39(1), 77–86. 10.1017/S0033291708003437 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Diener C, Kuehner C, & Flor H (2010). Loss of control during instrumental learning: A source localization study. Neuroimage, 50(2), 717–726. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.094 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Diener C, Struve M, Balz N, Kuehner C, & Flor H (2009). Exposure to uncontrollable stress and the postimperative negative variation (PINV): Prior control matters. Biological Psychology, 80(2), 189–195. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2008.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Eitam B, Kennedy PM, & Tory Higgins E (2013). Motivation from control. Experimental Brain Research, 229(3), 475–484. 10.1007/s00221-012-3370-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Elbert T, Rockstroh B, Lutzenberger W, & Birbaumer N (1982). Slow brain potentials after withdrawal of control. Archiv Für Psychiatrie Und Nervenkrankheiten, 232(3), 201–214. 10.1007/BF02141781 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Grasso DJ, & Simons RF (2011). Perceived parental support predicts enhanced late positive event-related brain potentials to parent faces. Biological Psychology, 86(1), 26–30. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.10.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Gray JA (1970). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 8(3), 249–266. 10.1016/0005-7967(70)90069-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hajcak G, & Foti D (2020). Significance?… Significance! Empirical, methodological, and theoretical connections between the late positive potential and P300 as neural responses to stimulus significance: An integrative review. Psychophysiology, e13570. 10.1111/psyp.13570 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hajcak G, MacNamara A, Foti D, Ferri J, & Keil A (2013). The dynamic allocation of attention to emotion: Simultaneous and independent evidence from the late positive potential and steady state visual evoked potentials. Biological Psychology, 92(3), 447–455. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.11.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hajcak G, MacNamara A, & Olvet DM (2010). Event-Related Potentials, Emotion, and Emotion Regulation: An Integrative Review. Developmental Neuropsychology, 35(2), 129–155. 10.1080/87565640903526504 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hajcak G, Meyer A, & Kotov R (2017). Psychometrics and the neuroscience of individual differences: Internal consistency limits between-subjects effects. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(6), 823–834. 10.1037/abn0000274 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Imburgio MJ, & MacNamara A (2019). Cognitive reappraisal in an unpredictable world: Prior context matters. International Journal of Psychophysiology: Official Journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology, 146, 173–179. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2019.09.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Kathmann N, Jonitz L, & Engel RR (1990). Cognitive Determinants of the Postimperative Negative Variation. Psychophysiology, 27(3), 256–263. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1990.tb00380.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Lang PJ, Bradley MM, & Cuthbert BN (1997). Motivated attention: Affect, activation, and action. In Attention and orienting: Sensory and motivational processes (pp. 97–135). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  19. Lang PJ, Bradley MM, & Cuthbert BN (2005). International affective picture system (IAPS): Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual. Gainesville, FL: NIMH. Center for the Study of Emotion & Attention. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lang Peter J., & Bradley MM (2010). Emotion and the motivational brain. Biological Psychology, 84(3), 437–450. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2009.10.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Luck SJ, & Kappenman ES (2016). Electroencephalography and Event-Related Brain Potentials. In Berntson GG, Cacioppo JT, & Tassinary LG (Eds.), Handbook of Psychophysiology (4th ed., pp. 74–100). Cambridge University Press; Cambridge Core. 10.1017/9781107415782.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. MacNamara A, Post D, Kennedy AE, Rabinak CA, & Phan KL (2013). Electrocortical processing of social signals of threat in combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder. Biological Psychology, 94(2), 441–449. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.08.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Miller GA, Gratton G, & Yee CM (1988). Generalized Implementation of an Eye Movement Correction Procedure. Psychophysiology, 25(2), 241–243. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1988.tb00999.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Minnix JA, Versace F, Robinson JD, Lam CY, Engelmann JM, Cui Y, Brown VL, & Cinciripini PM (2013). The late positive potential (LPP) in response to varying types of emotional and cigarette stimuli in smokers: A content comparison. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 89(1), 18–25. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2013.04.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Newman MG, & Llera SJ (2011). A novel theory of experiential avoidance in generalized anxiety disorder: A review and synthesis of research supporting a contrast avoidance model of worry. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(3), 371–382. 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.01.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Nunnally JC (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  27. Overmier JB, & Seligman ME (1967). Effects of inescapable shock upon subsequent escape and avoidance responding. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 63(1), 28–33. 10.1037/h0024166 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Rockstroh B, Elbert T, Lutzenberger W, & Birbaumer N (1979). Slow Cortical Potentials Under Conditions of Uncontrollability. Psychophysiology, 16(4), 374–380. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1979.tb01481.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Tacikowski P, & Nowicka A (2010). Allocation of attention to self-name and self-face: An ERP study. Biological Psychology, 84(2), 318–324. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.03.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. van den Bosch RJ (1984). Contingent negative variation: Components and scalp distribution in psychiatric patients. Biological Psychiatry, 19(7), 963–972. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Walter WG, Cooper R, Aldridge VJ, McCALLUM WC, & Winter AL (1964). Contingent Negative Variation: An Electric Sign of Sensori-Motor Association and Expectancy in the Human Brain. Nature, 203(4943), 380–384. 10.1038/203380a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Weinberg A, Hilgard J, Bartholow BD, & Hajcak G (2012). Emotional targets: Evaluative categorization as a function of context and content. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 84(2), 149–154. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.01.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Werner J, Weisbrod M, Resch F, Roessner V, & Bender S (2011). Increased performance uncertainty in children with ADHD? - Elevated post-imperative negative variation (PINV) over the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 7(1), 38. 10.1186/1744-9081-7-38 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Wessa M, Kanske P, Neumeister P, Bode K, Heissler J, & Schönfelder S (2010). EmoPics: Subjective and psychophysiological evaulation of new imagery for clinical biopsychological research. Z. Klin. Psychol. Psychother. Suppl, 1, 11–77. [Google Scholar]
  35. Woodman GF (2010). A Brief Introduction to the Use of Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) in Studies of Perception and Attention. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 72(8). 10.3758/APP.72.8.2031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES