During the earliest (subject) top, half dozen experiences systems was in fact outlined. These types of consisted of positive cued products, negative cued examples, simple non-accessory cued examples, confident uncued samples, negative uncued examples, and you may basic non-accessory uncued products. The new onset date is picked when the address images was indeed presented. From the 2nd (group) height, T-evaluating were used in analysis. The latest contrast photo (basic cued products-emotion cued examples having attentional wedding, feeling uncued examples-natural uncued samples to have attentional disengagement) from a few teams were new enter in study. To choose whether there’s tall activation comparable to for each contrast, a corrected p = 0.05 and you may the amount endurance away from party proportions = 20 voxels to the peak (intensity) were used just like the threshold.

Behavioural investigation

In repeated measures ANOVA of 2 (group) ? 2 (cue validity) ? 3 (emotion valence), a significant main effect of cue validity was observed (F_{step one,29} = ; p < 0.001); a significant main effect of emotion valence was observed (F_dos,62 = ; P < 0.01); the interaction of cue validity and attachment style reached significance (F_2,62 = 4.25; p < 0.05) (Table 2 and Fig. 2).

Attentional engagement and disengagement were analyzed by repeated ANOVA of 2 (attachment style) ? 3 (valence). Testing attentional engagement in the cued situation, the main effect of valence reached significance (F_2,62 = 8.20; p < 0.01), the attentional engagement effect of positive emotion was ms (p < 0.01) and the attentional engagement effect of negative emotion was ms (p < 0.01). The difference between the two groups did not reach significance. Testing attentional disengagement in the uncued situation, the main effect of valence reached significance (F_1,29 = 5.24, p < 0.05). Further data showed the RT of neutral ( ms) was slower than positive emotion ( ms) and negative emotion ( ms), which means they did not show attention disengagement to attachment emotion.

When considering different emotion themes of parent-child and romantic images in the cued situation, no attentional engagement effect was found. In the uncued situation, the repeated ANOVA of 2 (group) ? 3 (valence) ? 2 (attachment theme) showed that the main effect of valence reached significance (F_2,62 = 4.23; p < 0.05); the main effect of theme also reached significance (F_2,62 = 6.85; p < 0.05); the interaction of attachment styles ? valence ? themes reached significance, F_2,62 = 3.56, p < 0.05. Testing the simple effect of emotion valence, the attentional disengagement effect of avoidant individuals for negative parent-child images was 7.08 ms (p < 0.05) and the attentional disengagement effect of secure individuals for positive parent-child images was ms (p < 0.05). Testing the simple effect of attachment themes, attentional disengagement of secure individuals for positive parent-child images was ms (p < 0.05). Attentional disengagement of avoidant individuals for negative parent-child images was ms (p < 0.05).

As the shown in Desk step 3 less than, high correlations of the two attentional parts in almost any emotions lived in both brand new safe and you may avoidant groups.

Category research

Once we opposed the group effects, the brand new contrast off avoidant category so you can safer class found tall activation throughout the whole-head research. Avoidant some one shown healthier activation throughout the right advanced temporary gyrus, center occipital gyrus, and the leftover medial frontal gyrus, middle occipital gyrus, second system area, and you will cingulate gyrus than secure people (FWE = 0.05, team proportions = 20) (Fig. step ukraine date three and you can Desk 4).

When viewing new attentional wedding off safe someone, tall activation on the best fusiform gyrus (x = 45–66, y = ?54–66, z = 3–15) together with middle occipital gyrus to bad feeling (height voxel accentuate, x = 48–54, y = ?75, z = ?3–0,) had been found, yet not so you’re able to positive emotion (FWE = 0.05, class dimensions = 20). The activation away from disengagement was near the reaction from engagement to bad emotion (Fig. 4).