Emotionality effects in ambiguous word recognition: The crucial role of the affective congruence between distinct meanings of ambiguous words.

There is substantial evidence that affectively charged words (e.g., party or gun) are processed differently from neutral words (e.g., pen), although there are also inconsistent findings in the field. Some lexical or semantic variables might explain such inconsistencies, due to the possible modulation of affective word processing by these variables. The aim of the present study was to examine the extent to which affective word processing is modulated by semantic ambiguity. We conducted a large lexical decision study including semantically ambiguous words (e.g., cataract) and semantically unambiguous words (e.g., terrorism), analysing the extent to which reaction times (RTs) were influenced by their affective properties. The findings revealed a valence effect in which positive valence made RTs faster, whereas negative valence slowed them. The valence effect diminished as the semantic ambiguity of words increased. This decrease did not affect all ambiguous words, but was observed mainly in ambiguous words with incongruent affective meanings. These results highlight the need to consider the affective properties of the distinct meanings of ambiguous words in research on affective word processing.

Gamma Oscillations in the Temporal Pole Reflect the Contribution of Approach and Avoidance Motivational Systems to the Processing of Fear and Anger Words.

Prior reports suggest that affective effects in visual word processing cannot be fully explained by a dimensional perspective of emotions based on valence and arousal. In the current study, we focused on the contribution of approach and avoidance motivational systems that are related to different action components to the processing of emotional words. To this aim, we compared frontal alpha asymmetries and brain oscillations elicited by anger words associated with approach (fighting) motivational tendencies, and fear words that may trigger either avoidance (escaping), approach (fighting) or no (freezing) action tendencies. The participants' task was to make decisions about approaching or distancing from the concepts represented by words. The results of cluster-based and beamforming analyses revealed increased gamma power band synchronization for fear words relative to anger words between 725 and 750 ms, with an estimated neural origin in the temporal pole. These findings were interpreted to reflect a conflict between different action tendencies underlying the representation of fear words in semantic and emotional memories, when trying to achieve task requirements. These results are in line with the predictions made by the fear-hinders-action hypothesis. Additionally, current data highlights the contribution of motivational features to the representation and processing of emotional words.

Does it matter if we approach or withdraw when reading? A comparison of fear-related words and anger-related words.

The main aim of the present research was to explore the role of affective features beyond valence and arousal (i.e., the approach-withdrawal dimension) in visual word processing. For this purpose, fear-related words and anger-related words were compared in three tasks: a lexical decision task (LDT), a valence decision task (VDT) and an approach-distancing decision task (ADDT). Although these two types of words did not differ in the first two tasks, faster 'distancing' responses were given to anger-related words than to fear-related words in the ADDT. As long as these two types of words were matched in valence and arousal (among other variables), these results illustrate the need to consider other emotional dimensions (in this case, the approach-withdrawal dimension) beyond the two-dimensional perspective in order to account for the emotional effects in visual words processing and to describe how the affective space is organized. In addition, the results suggest a task-dependence effect: differential effects of fear and anger only emerged when participants were explicitly focused on the approach-withdrawal dimension. These findings are discussed in relation to motivationally-based mechanisms.