Summary output of the final LMM model.

Evidence is discordant regarding how emotional processing and cognitive control interact to shape behavior. This observational study sought to examine this interaction by looking at the distinction between proactive and reactive modes of control and how they relate to emotional processing. Seventy-four healthy participants performed an emotional priming Stroop task. On each trial, target stimuli of a spatial Stroop task were preceded by sad or neutral facial expressions, providing two emotional conditions. To manipulate the requirement of both proactive and reactive control, the proportion of congruent trials (PC) was varied at the list-wide (LWPC) and item-specific (ISPC) levels, respectively. We found that sad priming led to behavioral costs only in trials with low proactive and reactive cognitive control demands. Our findings suggest that emotional processing affects cognitive processes other than cognitive control in the Stroop task. Moreover, both proactive and reactive control modes seem effective in overcoming emotional interference of priming stimuli.

关于情绪加工与认知控制如何交互以塑造行为，现有研究证据尚存分歧。本观察性研究旨在探究这一交互机制，通过考察前瞻式认知控制（proactive control）与反应式认知控制（reactive control）两种模式的差异，及其与情绪加工的关联。本研究招募74名健康被试完成一项情绪启动Stroop任务。在每一试次中，空间Stroop任务的目标刺激前会呈现悲伤或中性面部表情，以此设置两种情绪条件。为操纵前瞻式与反应式认知控制的任务需求，我们分别在列表整体（list-wide, LWPC）与项目特异性（item-specific, ISPC）两个层面，对一致性试次占比（proportion of congruent trials, PC）进行调整。研究结果显示，仅在低前瞻式与低反应式认知控制需求的试次中，悲伤启动才会引发行为代价。本研究结果表明，在Stroop任务中，情绪加工对认知过程的影响并非仅局限于认知控制环节。此外，前瞻式与反应式两种认知控制模式似乎均能有效克服启动刺激带来的情绪干扰。