Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Facial Feedback Hypothesis

Facial Feedback Hypothesis

Charles Darwin proposed that facial expressions are an evolutionary adaptation for communication. He argued that these expressions are not influenced by culture but are universal across species. For example, a snarling expression with exposed teeth signals a threat in many animals, including humans. Darwin also suggested that displaying an emotion can intensify the feeling. Smiling, for example, could enhance one's sense of happiness. This idea laid the foundation for understanding the role...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Questionable Research Practices: A Principled Classification and Ranking Based on Survey Data.

Science and engineering ethics·2026

Same author

From Programmes to Planning: How Schools Define and Prioritise Mental Health Problem Prevention.

Journal of prevention (2022)·2026

Same author

Becoming a Member of the Prevention Club: Development of Interdisciplinary Prevention Terminology.

Journal of prevention (2022)·2025

Same author

Metacognitive confidence and affect - two sides of the same coin?

Cognition & emotion·2025

Same author

One hundred years of EEG for brain and behaviour research.

Nature human behaviour·2024

Same author

Reappraising reappraisal: an expanded view.

Cognition & emotion·2023

Same journal

What's in a Mean? Comparing Interbeat Interval Averaging Methods Across Variability Levels and Window Lengths.

Psychophysiology·2026

Same journal

Model-Free and Model-Based Learning in Human Fear Conditioning.

Psychophysiology·2026

Same journal

Examining the Impact of Acute Exercise and Arousal Reappraisal on Stressor-Evoked Psychological and Cardiovascular Responses.

Psychophysiology·2026

Same journal

Respiratory Sinus Arrhythmia and Hierarchical Dimensions of Psychopathology.

Psychophysiology·2026

Same journal

Probing Prediction-Related Processes in Language Using an EEG Word Stem Completion Paradigm.

Psychophysiology·2026

Same journal

sBOSC: A Method for Source-Level Identification of Neural Oscillations in Electromagnetic Brain Signals.

Psychophysiology·2026

See all related articles

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 3, 2026

The Emotional Stroop Task: Assessing Cognitive Performance under Exposure to Emotional Content

The Emotional Stroop Task: Assessing Cognitive Performance under Exposure to Emotional Content

Published on: June 29, 2016

High-Frequency SSVEP: Evidence for Task-Driven but Not for Stimulus-Driven Affective Attention.

R Naar^1,2, S E Taras¹, L Korts^1,3

¹Institute of Psychology, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.

Psychophysiology

|December 11, 2025

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Steady-State Visually Evoked Potentials (SSVEP) and the late positive potential (LPP) measure different aspects of affective attention. SSVEP showed task-driven attention effects, while LPP captured both task- and stimulus-driven attention.

Keywords:

affective processing attention emotion regulation high‐frequency steady‐state visually evoked potentials late positive potential mental imagery rhythmic entrainment source separation

More Related Videos

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments

Published on: January 23, 2017

Investigating the Deployment of Visual Attention Before Accurate and Averaging Saccades via Eye Tracking and Assessment of Visual Sensitivity

Investigating the Deployment of Visual Attention Before Accurate and Averaging Saccades via Eye Tracking and Assessment of Visual Sensitivity

Published on: March 18, 2019

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 3, 2026

The Emotional Stroop Task: Assessing Cognitive Performance under Exposure to Emotional Content

The Emotional Stroop Task: Assessing Cognitive Performance under Exposure to Emotional Content

Published on: June 29, 2016

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments

Published on: January 23, 2017

Investigating the Deployment of Visual Attention Before Accurate and Averaging Saccades via Eye Tracking and Assessment of Visual Sensitivity

Investigating the Deployment of Visual Attention Before Accurate and Averaging Saccades via Eye Tracking and Assessment of Visual Sensitivity

Published on: March 18, 2019

Area of Science:

Neuroscience
Cognitive Psychology
Affective Science

Background:

Affective processes unfold over seconds, challenging event-related potentials (ERPs) sensitive to stimulus onset.
Steady-State Visually Evoked Potentials (SSVEP) offer a solution by using flickering stimuli to probe longer time windows.
Understanding attentional mechanisms in affective neuroscience requires appropriate signal parameters.

Purpose of the Study:

To investigate affective attention using Steady-State Visually Evoked Potentials (SSVEP) and the late positive potential (LPP).
To examine how stimulus-driven (affective valence) and task-driven (attentional manipulation) factors modulate neural responses.
To compare the sensitivity of SSVEP and LPP to different attentional mechanisms.

Main Methods:

Utilized periodic contrast modulation (42.5 Hz) for SSVEP measurement in 44 participants.
Employed time-frequency analysis with rhythmic entrainment source separation.
Measured late positive potential (LPP) and performed sliding-window robustness checks.

Main Results:

SSVEP revealed sensitivity to task-driven attentional manipulation, but not affective valence.
LPP showed sensitivity to both task-driven and stimulus-driven attention.
Task-driven effects on LPP were localized and did not generalize robustly over time.

Conclusions:

SSVEPs and LPPs appear to index distinct components of affective attention.
Task-driven attention modulates SSVEP, while LPP reflects broader attentional engagement.
Potential influences of eye movements and mental imagery on neural responses warrant further investigation.