English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We are often required to interpret discordant emotional signals. Whereas equivalent cognitive paradigms cause noticeable conflict via their behavioral and psychophysiological effects, the same may not necessarily be true for discordant emotions. Skin conductance responses (SCRs) and heart rates (HRs) were measured during a classic Stroop task and one in which the emotions conveyed by lexicosemantic content and prosody were congruent or incongruent. The participants' task was to identify the emotion conveyed by lexicosemantic content or prosody. No relationship was observed between HR and congruence. SCR was higher during incongruent than during congruent conditions of the experimental task (as well as in the classic Stroop task), but no difference in SCR was observed in a comparison between congruence effects during lexicosemantic emotion identification and those during prosodic emotion identification. It is concluded that incongruence between lexicosemantic and prosodic emotion does cause notable cognitive conflict. Functional neuroanatomic implications are discussed.

Does incongruence of lexicosemantic and prosodic information cause discernible cognitive conflict?