Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Psychological Resea ch (2020) 84:1801–1814
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s00426-019-01192-4
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Dis ac ion byde ian sounds: disgus ing andneu al wo ds cap u e
a en ion o hesame ex en
Fab iceB.R.Pa men ie 1,2,3 · IsabelF aga4 · AliciaLei a1,2 · Pila Fe é5
Recei ed: 8 Decembe 2018 / Accep ed: 20 Ap il 2019 / Published online: 3 May 2019
© The Au ho (s) 2019
Abs ac
Se e al s udies ha e a gued ha wo ds e oking nega i e emo ions, such as disgus , g ab a en ion mo e han neu al wo ds,
and lea e aces in memo y ha a e mo e pe sis en . Howe e , hese conclusions a e ypically based on asks equi ing
pa icipan s o p ocess he seman ic con en o hese wo ds in a olun a ily manne . We sough o compa e he in olun a y
a en ion g abbing powe o disgus ing and neu al wo ds using hem as a e and unexpec ed audi o y dis ac o s in a c oss-
modal oddball ask, and hen p obing he pa icipan s’ memo y o hese s imuli in a su p ise ecogni ion ask. F equen is
and Bayesian analyses con e ged o show ha , compa ed o a s anda d one, disgus ing and neu al audi o y wo ds p oduced
signi ican bu equi alen le els o dis ac ion in a isual ca ego iza ion ask, ha hey elici ed compa able le els o memo y
disc iminabili y in he inciden al ecogni ion ask, and ha he pa icipan s’ indi idual sensi i i y o disgus did no in luence
he esul s. Ou esul s sugges ha dis ac ion by unexpec ed wo ds is no modula ed by hei emo ional alence, a leas
when hese wo ds a e ask-i ele an and a e empo ally and pe cep ually decoupled om he a ge s imuli.
In oduc ion
Nume ous indings in psychology show ha ongoing pe -
o mance can be nega i ely a ec ed by he p esence o dis-
ac ing s imuli, and ha he deg ee o dis ac ion exe ed
by such s imuli a ies wi h ce ain ac o s. One p ominen
line o esea ch has ocused on he p opensi y o i ele an
s imuli o cap u e ou a en ion by i ue o hei unexpec ed
occu ence and he con ingen p ocessing o hei seman ic
ea u es. Whe he emo ional ea u es o such i ele an s im-
uli can media e dis ac ion emains la gely unexplo ed, how-
e e . A dis inc line o wo k has cen e ed on he ole o he
dis ac o s’ emo ional con en , showing o example ha dis-
ac o s elici ing disgus a e mo e likely o dis up cogni i e
pe o mance and imp in memo y han neu al dis ac o s.
Though hese indings a e o en in e p e ed as an indica ion
o he nega i e dis ac o s’ p opensi y o g ab a en ion com-
pa ed o neu al ones, hey o en o igina e om pa adigms
ha we e no designed o measu e a en ion cap u e pe se
and equi e pa icipan s o a end he e y s imuli con eying
he emo ional con en . We sough o combine he wo lines
o wo k using a c oss-modal oddball ask designed o meas-
u e he dis ac ion induced by o-be-igno ed disgus ing and
neu al audi o y wo ds in an ongoing isual ca ego iza ion
ask. We chose o ocus on one speci ic nega i e emo ion,
namely disgus , o pas wo k has sugges ed ha i is espe-
cially p one o cap u e a en ion and imp in on memo y.
De iance dis ac ion
Task-i ele an s imuli ha unexpec edly di e om an
o he wise s uc u ed o epea ed sequence o s imuli (de i-
an among s anda d s imuli) cap u e a en ion and yield
beha io al dis ac ion in an un ela ed ongoing ask (e.g.,
Bendixen e al., 2010; Esce a, Alho, Winkle , & Nää änen,
* Fab ice B. R. Pa men ie
ab ice.pa [email p o ec ed]
1 Depa men o Psychology andResea ch Ins i u e o Heal h
Sciences (iUNICS), Ed. Cien i ico-Tecnico (iUNICS),
Uni e si y o  heBalea ic Islands, C a de Valldemossa, km
75, 07122Palma, Balea icIslands, Spain
2 Balea ic Islands Heal h Resea ch Ins i u e (IdISBa), Palma,
Balea icIslands, Spain
3 School o Psychology, Uni e si y o Wes e n Aus alia,
Pe h, WA, Aus alia
4 Cogni i e P ocesses andBeha io Resea ch G oup,
Depa men o Social Psychology, Basic Psychology
andMe hodology, Uni e si y o San iago de Compos ela,
San iagodeCompos ela, Spain
5 Depa men o Psychology andCRAMC, Uni e si a Ro i a i
Vi gili, Ta agona, Spain
1802 Psychological Resea ch (2020) 84:1801–1814
1 3
1998; Pa men ie , 2014; Pa men ie , Vasile , & And és,
2018; Sch öge , 1996; Sch öge & Wol , 1998b; Vasile ,
Pa men ie , Angele, & Ki kby, 2018). While his ype o
e ec has been epo ed ac oss a ious senso y modali ies
(e.g., Be i, 2008; Be i & Sch öge , 2003; Boll & Be i,
2009; Li, Pa men ie , & Zhang, 2013; Ljungbe g, Pa men-
ie , Lei a, & Vega, 2012; Pa men ie , 2016; Pa men ie ,
Ljungbe g, Elsley, & Lindk is , 2011; Roebe , Widmann, &
Sch öge , 2003), he phenomenon has been mos abundan ly
s udied wi h audi o y dis ac o s. Unexpec ed sounds ypi-
cally igge a se ies o h ee elec ophysiological esponses:
misma ch nega i i y (MMN), P3a and eo ien a ion nega i -
i y o RON (e.g., Be i, 2008; Esce a e al., 1998; Ho á h,
Winkle , & Bendixen, 2008; Sch öge , 1996; Sch öge ,
Gia d, & Wol , 2000; Sch öge & Wol , 1998a). These a e
espec i ely in e p e ed as he de ec ion o audi o y change,
he in olun a y o ien ing o a en ion owa ds he unex-
pec ed sound, and a e-o ien ing o a en ion owa ds he
ongoing p ima y ask (e.g., Be i, 2008; Be i & Sch öge ,
2001; Esce a e al., 1998; Sch öge , 1996). A he beha io al
le el, unexpec ed sounds leng hen esponse imes o a ge s
in ongoing asks and, some imes, educe esponse accu acy
(e.g., Pa men ie , 2014; Sch öge , 1996). This e ec is in
pa due o he in olun a y shi o a en ion o, and away
om, he unexpec ed sound (e.g., Esce a e al., 1998; Pa -
men ie , El o d, Esce a, And és, & Miguel, 2008; Sch öge ,
1996), and emana es om he unexpec ed sounds’ iola-
ion o p edic ions a he han om hei low p obabili y
o occu ence pe se (e.g., Pa men ie , Elsley, And és, &
Ba celó, 2011; Sch öge , Bendixen, T ujillo-Ba e o, & Roe-
be , 2007). Hence, de iance dis ac ion educes o anishes
when unexpec ed sounds a e p edic able, be i explici ly
(e.g., Ho á h & Bendixen, 2012; Pa men ie & Heb e o,
2013; Sussman, Winkle , & Sch öge , 2003) o implici ly
(e.g., Pa men ie , Elsley, e al., 2011; Sch öge e al., 2007).
Impo an ly, unexpec ed sounds also a ec beha io
h ough he in olun a y app aisal o hei seman ic con-
en s (e.g., Esce a, Yago, Co al, Co be a, & Nuñez, 2003;
Mulle -Gass e al., 2007; Pa men ie , Pacheco-Ungue i, &
Vale o, 2018; Sh y o , Hauk, & Pul e mulle , 2004; We zel,
Widmann, & Sch öge , 2011). Fo example, esponse imes
in a le / igh a ow ca ego iza ion ask a e a ec ed by he
de ian wo ds “le ” and “ igh ” in wo ways: by i ue o
hese sounds iola ing he pa e n o s anda d ones, and as
a unc ion o he ela ionship (cong uen o incong uen )
be ween he de ian wo ds’ meaning and he isual a ows
(Pa men ie , 2008; Pa men ie & Ke au e , 2015; Pa men-
ie , Tu ne , & Elsley, 2011; Pa men ie , Tu ne , & Pé ez,
2014). While hese s udies es i y o he in olun a y seman-
ic p ocessing o he unexpec ed sounds, li le esea ch has
examined whe he such p ocessing ex ends o hei emo-
ional con en . While some wo k indica es ha dis ac ion
by unexpec ed sounds is g ea e when pa icipan s a e in an
enhanced mood s a e (posi i e o nega i e; Pacheco-Ungue i
& Pa men ie , 2014, 2016) o being exposed o a nega i e
con ex (Domínguez-Bo às, Ga cia-Ga cia, & Esce a, 2008;
Ga cia-Ga cia, Yo dano a, Kole , Domínguez-Bo às, &
Esce a, 2010; Gulo a, Sadia, & Sussman, 2013), he e ec
o he unexpec ed sounds’ emo ional con en pe se has
sca cely been documen ed. Limi ed e idence om s udies
using non- e bal emo ional sounds epo a la ge ampli ude
o he elec ophysiological esponses ypically associa ed
wi h an o ien ing esponse, as well as enhanced beha io al
dis ac ion. Fo example, sexually sugges i e whis les yield a
la ge MMN esponse (F angos, Ri e , & F iedman, 2005),
and sho nega i e emo ional sound clips elici a la ge P3a
esponse and pupil dila ion han neu al sounds (Widmann,
Sch öge , & We zel, 2018). E idence ega ding beha io al
dis ac ion is limi ed oo. Pa icipan s ca ego izing isually
p esen ed s imuli appea o be equally dis ac ed by neu-
al and nega i e de ian wo ds (Ljungbe g & Pa men ie ,
2012) o sounds (Max, Widmann, Ko z, Sch öge , & We -
zel, 2015), and equi alen le els o dis ac ion by aboo and
neu al de ian wo ds ha e been obse ed in a se ial ecall
ask (Röe , Kö ne , Buchne , & Bell, 2017). We no e, how-
e e , ha nei he Ljungbe g and Pa men ie (Ljungbe g &
Pa men ie , 2012) no Roë e al. (2017) ma ched hei neu-
al and emo ional wo ds wi h espec o psycholinguis ic
dimensions (e.g., equency, imageabili y, e c.), and ha he
mix u e o wo ds hey used makes i impossible o de e mine
wha emo ion, i any, was e oked by such wo ds. Hence, we
would a gue ha he e is cu en ly no conclusi e e idence
es ablishing whe he o no nega i e and neu al de ian
wo ds yield di e en le els o beha io al dis ac ion.
The e ec o disgus ing s imuli oncogni i e
pe o mance
The e is ample e idence ha s imuli e oking nega i e
emo ions, whe he pic o ial o lexical, a e mo e salien ,
p ocessed di e en ially, cons i u e po en dis ac o s when
i ele an o he ongoing ask, o lea e longe las ing ac i-
a ions in memo y. Nega i e s imuli a e widely belie ed o
cap u e a en ion in an exogenous manne (Ande son, 2005;
Blanche e, 2006; Eas wood, Smilek, & Me ikle, 2003; Fox,
Russo, & Geo giou, 2005; Keil & Ihssen, 2004), a phenom-
enon ega ded as adap i e (e.g., Öhman, Flyk , & Es e es,
2001; Öhman & Mineka, 2003). Fo example, nume ous
s udies also show ha emo ional wo ds cap u e a en ion
mo e han neu al wo ds (Algom, Chaju , & Le , 2004;
Huang, Baddeley, & Young, 2008; Williams, Ma hews, &
MacLeod, 1996), and a e be e emembe ed (Al a iba &
Baue , 2004; Dewhu s & Pa y, 2000; Fe é, 2003; Fe é,
F aga, Comesaña, & Sánchez-Casas, 2015), including in
one’s second language (Fe é, Ga cía, F aga, Sánchez-Casas,
1803Psychological Resea ch (2020) 84:1801–1814
1 3
& Mole o, 2010; Fe é, Sánchez-Casas, & F aga, 2013;
Fe é, Ven u a, Comesaña, & F aga, 2015),
Some esea che s ha e a gued o a disc e e emo ion
model acco ding o which he e a e a limi ed numbe o
disc e e emo ions cha ac e ized by speci ic pa e ns o cog-
ni i e app aisals, beha io al ac ion endencies, associa ed
emo ional expe iences, psycho-physiological eac ions, and
emo ion egula ion mechanisms (Ekman, 1992; Iza d, 1992;
Nummenmaa, Gle ean, Ha i, & Hie anen, 2014; S ein &
Oa ley, 1992). Such emo ions ypically include ange , ea ,
su p ise, sadness, disgus and happiness (Ekman, 1992),
which can be elici ed by a ange o s imuli such as aces
(e.g., Lundq is & Dimbe g, 1995), ilm clips (e.g., Hewig
e al., 2005) o e bal desc ip ions (e.g., Ba e , Lindquis ,
& Gend on, 2007).
While a sys ema ic in es iga ion o he impac o all dis-
c e e emo ions on a en ional, lexical and memo y unc ion-
ing is lacking, he e a e nume ous s udies illus a ing he
di e en ial e ec s o se e al o hese emo ions. Disgus , a
basic emo ion uni e sally exp essed and ecognized ac oss
cul u es (Cu is & Bi an, 2001; Cu is, de Ba a, & Aunge ,
2011), is hough o g ab a en ion and imp in on memo y
because i ela es o he adap i ely and e olu iona ily el-
e an no ion o con amina ion (e.g., Fe nandes, Pandei ada,
Soa es, & Nai ne, 2017; Ola unji & Sawchuk, 2005; Rozin
& Fallon, 1987). Fo example, disgus ing pho og aphs yield
slowe esponses han neu al and ea ul pho og aphs in a
speeded line disc imina ion ask, and exhibi g ea e mem-
o y pe o mance in su p ise ecall and ecogni ion asks
(Chapman, Johannes, Poppenk, Mosco i ch, & Ande son,
2013). These esul s a e in line wi h he ea lie epo ha
disgus ing images yield signi ican ly slowe esponses and
mo e e o s han ea ul and neu al images in a concu en
digi compa ison ask (Ca e ié, Ruiz-Padial, López-Ma -
ín, & Albe , 2011). Fu he mo e, disgus ing pho og aphs
appea o a o d g ea e memo y ecollec ion han ea ul
ones (C ouche , Calde , Ramponi, Ba na d, & Mu phy,
2012). O in e es , simila indings ha e been epo ed wi h
wo d s imuli. Indeed, ela i e o neu al and ea ul wo ds,
disgus wo ds yield longe esponse imes in a colo nam-
ing S oop ask and a e be e ecalled in a subsequen su -
p ise ecall es (Cha ash & McKay, 2002). Mo e ecen ly,
Fe é, Ha o and Hinojosa (2017) epo ed ha , compa ed
o neu al wo ds, disgus ing and ea ul wo ds elici longe
esponse imes in a lexical decision ask, and ha disgus -
ing (bu no ea ul) wo ds lea e s onge memo y aces
han neu al wo ds in a su p ise ecall (Expe imen 1) o
ecogni ion (Expe imen 2) ask. The au ho s in e p e ed
hese indings as e lec ing he g ea e au oma ic alloca ion
o a en ional esou ces o nega i e s imuli, and he idea ha
disgus ing wo ds may ecei e g ea e in olun a y seman ic
encoding and elici s onge memo y aces. In line wi h
his idea, he ecogni ion ad an age o he disgus ing wo ds
disappea ed when he p ima y ask equi ed he explici
a ec i e p ocessing o bo h ypes o wo ds (Expe imen 3).
In e es ingly, e idence indica es ha he e ec o disgus ing
wo ds on lexical decision inc eases wi h one’s indi idual
sensi i i y o disgus . Indeed, Sil a, Mon a , Ponz and Zie-
gle (2012) obse ed a signi ican co ela ion be ween he
slowing o esponse imes obse ed in a lexical decision
ask o disgus ing wo ds (compa ed o neu al wo ds) and
he pa icipan s’ sensi i i y o disgus as measu ed by he
Disgus Scale (Haid , McCauley, & Rozin, 1994).
The p esen s udy
As desc ibed in he p e ious sec ion, he e exis s a pe asi e
no ion ha nega i e s imuli, among which disgus ing ones,
g ab a en ion in an in olun a y manne and a ec ask pe -
o mance nega i ely when hey cons i u e dis ac o s (e.g.,
Ca e ié e al., 2011; Fe nandes e al., 2017; Ohman e al.,
2001). In line wi h his obse a ion, we sough o es he
hypo hesis ha he dis ac ing po en ial o a e and unex-
pec ed wo ds (p esen ed among an o he wise epe i i e
sequence o s anda d ones) would be modula ed by he
emo ional and seman ic con en o hese wo ds (speci ically,
disgus ). The p ima y objec i e o ou s udy was o es , in
he con ex o a c oss-modal oddball ask, he p edic ion
ha disgus ing wo ds would yield g ea e beha io al dis-
ac ion han neu al wo ds. To achie e his, we measu ed
he deg ee o dis ac ion con eyed by disgus ing and neu-
al de ian audi o y wo ds in a 2-al e na i e o ced choice
ask wi h isual a ge s imuli. As desc ibed ea lie , his
ask is well-es ablished in he a en ion cap u e li e a u e
and de ian wo ds ha e been shown o unde go au oma ic
seman ic app aisal (e.g., Pa men ie , 2008). In line wi h pas
wo k on he e ec o de ian sounds, we p edic ed ha bo h
ypes o de ian s imuli would, by i ue o iola ing sen-
so y p edic ions, yield longe esponse imes han s anda d
sounds. Mo e impo an ly, based on he esul s o p e ious
wo k sugges ing ha disgus ing s imuli g ab a en ion mo e
han neu al s imuli, we p edic ed ha , compa ed o neu al
wo ds, disgus ing wo ds should yield g ea e dis ac ion in
he c oss-modal oddball ask, and supe io memo y pe -
o mance in he ecogni ion ask (Fe é e al., 2017). Fu -
he mo e, hese speci ic e ec s o disgus ing wo ds should
inc ease wi h he pa icipan s’ indi idual sensi i i y o dis-
gus , a p edic ion we assessed by measu ing he co ela ion
be ween pe o mance in he c oss-modal oddball and ecog-
ni ion asks on he one hand, and he pa icipan s’ sco e on
a disgus sensi i i y scale on he o he . Finally, a seconda y
objec i e o ou s udy was o explo e whe he disgus ing
wo ds would be mo e dis ac ing i pa icipan s we e ac i ely
engaged in a ask in which seman ics we e pa icula ly el-
e an (ca ego izing isual wo ds based on hei seman ic
ca ego y, as compa ed o ca ego izing isual digi s as odd o
1804 Psychological Resea ch (2020) 84:1801–1814
1 3
e en). While nume ous esea che s ha e a gued ha nega-
i e s imuli cap u e a en ion in an obliga o y manne in a
a ie y o pa adigms (e.g., Blanche e, 2006; Ohman e al.,
2001), he li e a u e also con ains examples o s udies whe e
dis ac ion can be modula ed by he ela ionship be ween
hese dis ac o s’ ea u es and he p ima y ask’s p ocessing
demands. Fo example, some e idence om isual a en-
ion s udies indica es ha s imuli ma ching ea u es cu -
en ly ac i e in wo king memo y a ac mo e a en ion han
un ela ed s imuli (e.g., So o, Heinke, Humph eys, & Blanco,
2005). Also, he deep (seman ic) p ocessing o wo ds en-
de s i ele an pic u es co esponding o hese wo ds mo e
dis ac ing han when hese wo ds a e encoded based on su -
ace ea u es (e.g., Sasin, Nieuwens ein, & Johnson, 2015).
In he ield o audi o y dis ac ion, some indings sugges
ha he seman ic ea u es o i ele an wo ds only in e e e
wi h memo y pe o mance in a p ima y ask when he la -
e equi es seman ic p ocessing (Ma sh, Hughes, & Jones,
2008). Since i is cu en ly unknown whe he he demands o
he ca ego iza ion ask in he oddball pa adigm can modula e
he impac o he seman ic ea u es o he i ele an sounds,
we op ed o explo e he issue by compa ing wo p ima y
asks equi ing di e en deg ees o seman ic p ocessing.
Me hod
Pa icipan s
One hund ed and wen y pa icipan s (84 emales, 114 igh -
handed), wi h a mean age o 21.38 (SD = 4.77), ook pa
in his s udy. All epo ed no mal o co ec ed- o-no mal
ision and hea ing. All we e s uden s a he Uni e si y o
he Balea ic Islands and ecei ed a small hono a ium o
hei pa icipa ion. In o med consen was ob ained om
all indi idual pa icipan s included in he s udy. Unde he
hypo hesis o a small- o-medium e ec size (dz = 0.35) o
disgus ing wo ds ( ela i e o neu al wo ds) on dis ac ion
and memo y measu es, and se ing he p obabili y o Type
I e o o 0.05, he equi ed sample size o achie e a powe
(1— ype II e o ) o 0.95 is 45. Ou sample size a exceeded
his equi emen .
Ma e ials
Two se s o 12 disgus ing wo ds and wo se s o 12 neu al
wo ds we e selec ed om wo no ma i e s udies con ain-
ing a ings o i e disc e e emo ions (Fe é e al., 2017;
Hinojosa e al., 2016) and used as audi o y dis ac o s in
he oddball ask, and as a ge s and oils in a subsequen
su p ise ecogni ion ask. The disgus ing and neu al wo ds
we e ma ched wi h espec o amilia i y, imageabili y, con-
c e eness, age o acquisi ion, wo d equency (log alue),
numbe o le e s, numbe o syllables, numbe o lexical
neighbo s, high equency neighbo s, mean Le ensh ein
dis ance o he 20 closes wo ds, con ex ual di e si y (log
alue), big am equency, and ig am equency. The wo
ypes o wo ds di e ed wi h espec o hei alence, a ousal
and hei disgus a ing (see Table1 o a desc ip ion o
he wo ds’ psycholinguis ic cha ac e is ics and s a is ical
compa isons; see Table4 in “Appendix” o he ull lis o
wo ds). All audi o y wo ds we e digi ally eco ded in he
same emale mono onous oice, no malized, and edi ed o
a du a ion o 400ms (while main aining pi ch). A 650Hz
sine-wa e one wi h a du a ion o 400ms (including 10ms
o ise/ all imes) was also gene a ed and no malized.
A se o six ehicle wo ds and six musical ins umen s
wo ds we e selec ed om Ma ul, Díez and Fe nández’s
(2015) no ma i e s udy o 56 seman ic ca ego ies (see
Table5 in “Appendix”). These wo ds we e used as a ge
wo ds in he seman ic ca ego iza ion condi ion o he odd-
ball ask (see below). These wo se s we e ma ched wi h
espec o he numbe o le e s, wo d equency (log alue),
p oduc ion (numbe o pa icipan s who gene a ed he exem-
pla om i s ca ego y name) and lexical a ailabili y (Ma ul
e al., 2015). The psycholinguis ic p ope ies and he s a is-
ical compa isons be ween he wo ca ego ies a e epo ed
in Table2.
The c oss-modal oddball and ecogni ion asks we e
p og ammed using E-P ime 2.0 (2016) and p esen ed on a
PC compu e equipped wi h a 17in sc een. Audi o y s imuli
we e deli e ed using closed headphones. The disgus sen-
si i i y ques ionnai e was adminis e ed using he Qual ics
pla o m.
P ocedu e
Pa icipan s pe o med he c oss-modal oddball ask, a su -
p ise ecogni ion es , and comple ed he disgus sensi i -
i y ques ionnai e (in ha o de ). Pa icipan s we e es ed
indi idually in a sound-a enua ed es ing boo h. This s udy
adhe ed o he e hical s anda ds o he Ame ican Psychologi-
cal Associa ion, and ecei ed e hical app o al om he Bio-
e hics Commi ee o he Uni e si y o he Balea ic Islands.
C oss‑modal oddball ask
In his ask, pa icipan s ca ego ized isual s imuli while
igno ing ask-i ele an sounds. Each ial consis ed o he
p esen a ion o an i ele an sound, immedia ely ollowed
by he p esen a ion o a isual a ge . Two ca ego iza ion
asks we e compa ed (be ween-pa icipan s). In he digi
pa i y ca ego iza ion ask, pa icipan s ca ego ized isu-
ally p esen ed digi s (1–4) as odd o e en. In he seman ic
ca ego iza ion ask, pa icipan s ca ego ized isually p e-
sen ed wo ds as musical ins umen s o ehicles. In bo h
1805Psychological Resea ch (2020) 84:1801–1814
1 3
ask condi ions, pa icipan s we e p esen ed wi h 720 ials
(o ganized in 6 blocks o 120 ials each). Each ial con-
sis ed o he ollowing sequence o e en s. A whi e ixa ion
c oss appea ed a he cen e o a black sc een, accompa-
nied by a ask-i ele an sound (desc ibed below). The ixa-
ion c oss and he sound s a ed a he same ime and las ed
400ms. The ixa ion c oss was hen eplaced by he isual
a ge s imulus (p esen ed in whi e) du ing 200ms, a e
which he ixa ion c oss e u ned du ing 800ms. Pa ici-
pan s, he e o e, had a o al esponse window o 1000ms
om he a ge ’s onse . The nex ial s a ed au oma i-
cally a he end o his in e al. Pa icipan s esponded by
p essing he B and N keys on he compu e keyboa d, using
wo inge s o hei dominan hand. The mapping be ween
he esponse keys and he odd/e en o ins umen / ehicle
esponses (in he digi pa i y and seman ic asks, espec-
i ely) was coun e balanced ac oss pa icipan s.
Th ee ypes o sound (s anda d sound, disgus ing de ian
wo d, neu al de ian wo d) we e mixed in a quasi- andom
o de o p esen a ion wi hin each block o ials. In s anda d
ials (80% o ials), he sound consis ed o a 650Hz sine
wa e one, he ea e e e ed o as he s anda d sound. In dis-
gus ing de ian ials (10% o ials), he sounds consis ed o
he audio eco dings om one o wo se s o 12 wo ds e ok-
ing disgus ( he se selec ion was coun e balanced ac oss
pa icipan s, wi h he unselec ed se being used as oils in
Table 1 Desc ip i e s a is ics, in e en ial s a is ics, and Bayes ac o s, compa ing he disgus ing and neu al wo ds used in he c oss-modal odd-
ball and ecogni ion asks
Wo d leng h, numbe o syllables, loga i hm o wo d equency (log equency), mean Le ensh ein dis ance o he 20 closes wo ds (old20),
numbe o lexical neighbo s, numbe o highe equency neighbo s, big am equency, ig am equency, and loga i hm o con ex ual di e si y
we e aken om Duchon, Pe ea, Sebas ián-Gallés, Ma í, and Ca ei as (2013). Familia i y, conc e eness and imageabili y we e ob ained om
Duchon e al. (2013) and Guasch, Fe é & F aga (2016). Subjec i e age o acquisi ion was aken om Alonso, Fe nandez, and Díez (2015) and
Hinojosa e al. (2016)
Disgus Neu al (46) p d 95% CI o dBF10
M (SD) M (SD) Lowe Uppe
Log equency 0.795 (0.517) 0.9662 (0.358) − 1.307 0.198 − 0.377 − 0.946 0.196 0.574
Familia i y 5.091 (1.172) 5.215 (1.020) − 0.392 0.697 − 0.113 − 0.679 0.454 0.306
Age o acquisi ion 6.711 (1.891) 6.579 (1.867) 0.243 .809 0.070 − 0.496 0.636 0.294
Le e s 6.708 (1.398) 6.333 (1.274) 0.971 .337 0.280 − 0.290 0.848 0.422
Syllables 2.875 (0.741) 2.667 (0.637) 1.045 .302 0.302 − 0.269 0.869 0.448
Lexical neighbo s 3.208 (4.293) 4.958 (6.975) − 1.047 0.301 − 0.302 − 0.870 0.269 0.449
Highe equency neighbo s 0.250 (0.442) 0.375 (1.056) − 0.535 0.595 − 0.154 − 0.720 0.413 0.323
Old20 2.056 (0.665) 1.788 (0.434) 1.658 0.104 0.479 − 0.098 1.050 0.870
Log con ex ual di e si y 0.547 (0.399) 0.628 (0.284) − 0.810 .422 − 0.234 − 0.800 0.335 0.376
Big am equency 4952.998 (3026.250) 4901.595 (3243.497) 0.057 .955 0.016 − 0.550 0.582 0.288
T ig am equency 613.080 (666.554) 580.388 (722.938) 0.163 .871 0.047 − 0.519 0.613 0.291
Imageabili y 5.404 (1.079) 5.452 (0.931) − 0.164 0.870 − 0.047 − 0.613 0.519 0.291
Conc e eness 5.205 (1.135) 5.302 (1.062) − 0.305 0.762 − 0.088 − 0.654 0.478 0.299
Valence 2.794 (0.779) 4.881 (0.367) − 11.875 < 0.001 − 3.428 − 4.319 − 2.521 2.85 × 1012
A ousal 5.264 (0.853) 4.198 (0.500) 5.283 < 0.001 1.525 0.873 2.164 4326.230
Disgus a ing 3.456 (0.546) 1.353 (0.331) 16.129 < 0.001 4.656 3.544 5.753 1.676 × 1017
Table 2 Desc ip i e s a is ics, in e en ial s a is ics, and Bayes Fac o s, compa ing he musical ins umen and ehicle wo ds used as a ge s im-
uli in he seman ic ca ego iza ion condi ion o he c oss-modal oddball ask
Wo d leng h and loga i hm o wo d equency (log equency) we e aken om Duchon e al. (2013). P oduc ion (numbe o pa icipan s p oduc-
ing he exempla om i s ca ego y name, max. 284) and lexical a ailabili y (ease wi h which a wo d is p oduced as a membe o one ca ego y)
we e aken om Ma lu e al. (2015)
Musical ins umen s Vehicles (10) p d 95% CI o d BF10
M (SD) M (SD) Lowe Uppe
Log equency 1.089 (0.407) 1.100 (0.541) − 0.040 0.969 − 0.023 − 1.154 1.109 0.467
Le e s 6.667 (1.211) 6.333 (1.751) 0.383 0.709 0.221 − 0.920 1.352 0.490
P oduc ion 185.5 (59.672) 160 (69.198) 0.684 .510 0.395 − 0.759 1.530 0.542
Lexical a ailabili y 28.714 (20.507) 11.698 (18.360) 1.514 0.161 0.874 − 0.338 2.048 0.925

1806 Psychological Resea ch (2020) 84:1801–1814
1 3
he subsequen ecogni ion ask; see nex sec ion). In neu-
al de ian ials (10% o ials), we used audio eco dings
o 12 neu al wo ds (co esponding o one o wo se s, he
unselec ed se being used as oils in a subsequen ecogni-
ion ask, he selec ion o se s being coun e balanced ac oss
pa icipan s). Each o he 24 de ian wo ds (12 neu al, 12
disgus ing) we e used once wi hin each block (and he e o e,
a o al o 6 imes each ac oss he oddball ask). All sounds
we e p esen ed binau ally h ough headphones a an in en-
si y o app oxima ely 70dB SPL. A di e en quasi- andom
o de o p esen a ion o he s anda d, disgus ing and neu al
ials was used o e e y pa icipan , wi h he cons ain ha
de ian ials ne e occu ed on consecu i e ials, and ha
each ype o sound ial occu ed equally o en in conjunc-
ion wi h each o he isual a ge s imuli.
In he digi pa i y ask, he a ge s imuli consis ed o he
digi s 1–4, each occu ing equally o en in each block o i-
als. In he seman ic judgemen ask, six wo ds co esponded
o musical ins umen s and six wo ds co esponded o ehi-
cles. Each wo d was used equally o en in each block o ials.
Each block o es ials was p eceded by wa mup ials
in ol ing he s anda d sound only: 8 p ac ice ials in he
digi pa i y ask (digi s 1–4 p esen ed wice each), and 12
p ac ice ials in he seman ic ca ego iza ion ask (each o
he 12 wo ds, 6 ehicles and 6 musical ins umen s, p e-
sen ed once). Pa icipan s we e ins uc ed o concen a e on
he ca ego iza ion o he isual s imuli, o y o espond as
quickly as possible while ying no o make e o s, and o
igno e all sounds.
Recogni ion ask
Following he oddball ask, pa icipan s pe o med a su -
p ise ecogni ion ask o measu e he ex en o which hey
ecognized he audi o y wo ds used as de ian s imuli in he
oddball ask. In each o 48 ials, pa icipan s we e p esen ed
wi h an audi o y wo d and asked o indica e whe he hey
ecognized ha wo d as one o hose p esen ed in he oddball
ask. Pa icipan s esponded by p essing he nume ical keys
“1” and “2” using wo inge s o hei dominan hand ( he
mapping o hese keys o he “yes” and “no” esponses was
coun e balanced ac oss pa icipan s). Following he p es-
en a ion o each wo d and un il a esponse was egis e ed;
g aphical illus a ions o he 1 and 2 keys we e isible on
he le and igh sides o he sc een espec i ely, accom-
panied by he wo ds “yes” and “no”. Each pa icipan was
p esen ed wi h 24 disgus ing and 24 neu al wo ds (in each
case, hal co esponded o he wo ds used in he oddball
ask, while he o he hal was new and used as oils). The
se s o 12 wo ds we e o a ed ac oss pa icipan s. The o de
o he wo ds was andom and di e en o e e y pa icipan .
Pa icipan s we e ins uc ed o espond as quickly as pos-
sible while ying o make no e o .
Disgus sensi i i y scale e ised (DS‑R)
Following he adminis a ion o he ecogni ion ask, each
pa icipan comple ed he Spanish e sion (Sandín, Valien e,
& Cho o , 2008) o Ola unji e al.’s (2007) adap a ion o
Haid , McCauley and Rozin’s (1994) disgus sensi i i y
scale. Using a 5-poin Like scale, pa icipan s a ed 27
i ems: 14 wi h espec o he deg ee o ag eemen wi h o
he applicabili y o s a emen s (e.g., “I I see someone omi ,
i makes me sick o my s omach”, “I migh be willing o y
ea ing monkey mea , unde some ci cums ances”), and 13
wi h espec o he epugnance in oked by speci ic expe-
iences (e.g., “You see a man wi h his in es ines exposed
a e an acciden ”, “You see maggo s on a piece o mea in
an ou doo ga bage pail”). The eliabili y o he DS-R, as
measu es in ou sample, was good (Ch onbach’s α = 0.825).
Resul s
To analyze he da a, we used equen is and Bayesian s a is-
ics. E ec sizes a e epo ed as pa ial e a-squa e o F es s,
and as Cohen’s dz o dependen sample es s (Lakens, 2013).
Fo all s a is ical es s, we epo he Bayes Fac o (BF10), o
assess he c edibili y o he expe imen al hypo hesis (p esence
o an e ec ) ela i e o ha o he null hypo hesis (absence
o an e ec ) gi en he da a. While alues below 1 indica e
ha he null hypo hesis is mo e c edible han he expe imen-
al hypo hesis (and ice e sa o alues abo e 1), i is o en
conside ed ha alues below 1/3 a e conside ed as s ong sup-
po o he null e ec , while alues abo e 3 a e ega ded as
s ongly suppo ing he p esence o an e ec (Je eys, 1961).
Ini ial analyses we e ca ied ou o examine he e ec o
sound ial (s anda d, disgus ing de ian wo d, neu al de i-
an wo d) and ask ype (digi pa i y ca ego iza ion, seman ic
ca ego iza ion) on esponse imes (RTs) and he p opo ion
o co ec esponses in he c oss-oddball ask, and on he
sensi i i y index (d′), he decision c i e ion (C) and RTs in
he ecogni ion ask (see Table3 o he de ailed s a is ical
esul s). Since he ype o ask did no in e ac wi h he ype
o sound ial o any o he dependen a iables (whe he in
he c oss-modal oddball ask o in he ecogni ion ask), he
da a om he wo asks we e collapsed and his ac o was
omi ed om he analyses epo ed below.
All he analyses we e conduc ed using JASP (JASP Team,
2018). The da a and analyses epo ed in his s udy a e a aila-
ble om he Open Science F amewo k (h ps ://os .io/8 mez ).
Oddball ask
Sepa a e one-way ANOVAs o epea ed measu es we e
ca ied ou o examine he e ec o he ype o sound ial
(s anda d, disgus ing de ian wo d, neu al de ian wo d)
1807Psychological Resea ch (2020) 84:1801–1814
1 3
on RTs (ms) and on he p opo ion o co ec esponses (see
Fig.1). The analysis o RTs e ealed a signi ican e ec o
sound ial, F(2,238) = 49.363, MSE = 423.4,
𝜂2
p
= 0.293,
p < 0.001, BF10 = 3.942 × 1015. Fu he analysis e ealed ha
bo h de ian wo ds p oduced signi ican dis ac ion ela i e
o he s anda d sound (disgus ing de ian wo ds s s anda d:
(119) = 8.898, dz = 0.812, 95% CI 0.605–1.017, p < 0.001,
BF10 = 8.754 × 1011; neu al de ian wo ds s s anda d:
(119) = 7.300, dz = 0.666, 95% CI 0.467–0.863, p < 0.001,
BF10 = 2.417 × 108). In con as , no di e ence was ound
be ween he wo ypes o de ian wo ds, (119) = 1.066,
dz = 0.097, 95% CI − 0.082 o 0.276, p = 0.288, BF10 = 0.176.
The ype o sound ial did no a ec he p opo ion
o co ec esponses, F(2,238) = 0.674, MSE = 0.003,
𝜂2
p
= 0.006, p = 0.511, BF10 = 0.056. A planned con as
aimed a compa ing he wo ypes o de ian wo ds con-
i med he absence o any di e ence be ween hese con-
di ions in ha espec , (119) = 0.049, ΔM = 1.986 × 10−4,
dz = 0.004, 95% CI − 0.174 o 0.183, p = 0.961, BF10 = 0.102.
To de e mine whe he dis ac ion by disgus ing de ian
wo ds a ied wi h he pa icipan s’ sensi i i y o disgus ,
we calcula ed he co ela ion be ween, on he one hand, he
di e ence be ween he wo ypes o de ian wo d (RT: dis-
gus –neu al; p opo ion co ec : neu al–disgus ) and, on he
o he hand, he pa icipan s’ sco e on he disgus sensi i i y
ques ionnai e. No co ela ion was ound o RTs ( = 0.123,
95% CI − 0.057 o 0.296, p = 0.179, BF10 = 0.279), o o he
p opo ion o co ec esponses ( = 0.158, 95% CI − 0.022
o 0.328, p = 0.085, BF10 = 0.496).
Finally, we examined he ela ionship be ween dis ac ion
due o acous ic de ia ions (s anda d e sus de ian wo ds) and
dis ac ion due o he meaning o he de ian wo ds (disgus
e sus neu al de ian wo ds) by analyzing he co ela ion
be ween hese wo measu es. No signi ican co ela ion was
ound o RTs ( = − 0.123, 95% CI − 0.292 o 0.057, p = 0.181,
BF10 = 0.276), o o he p opo ion o co ec esponses
( = 0.006, 95% CI − 0.171 o 0.183, p = 0.946, BF10 = 0.114).
In sum, bo h equen is s and Bayesian s a is ics yielded
s a is ical e idence ha disgus ing and neu al de ian wo ds
p oduced he same le el o dis ac ion, independen ly o he
pa icipan s’ sensi i i y o disgus .
Recogni ion ask
Pe o mance in he ecogni ion ask was measu ed and ana-
lyzed using wo measu es based on signal de ec ion heo y,
namely he sensi i i y index (d′) and he decision c i e ion
(C), as well as esponse imes.
Table 3 S a is ical analyses o
he da a om he c oss-oddball
and ecogni ion asks aking
in o accoun he ype o ask
(digi pa i y ca ego iza ion
e sus seman ic ca ego iza ion)
S sound condi ion (s anda d, disgus ing de ian , neu al de ian ), T ask condi ion (digi pa i y ca ego iza-
ion, seman ic ca ego iza ion), P p obe ype (nega i e, posi i e)
E ec d 1d 2F (d 1, d 2) MSE p
𝜂2
p
BF10
Oddball ask (RTs)
S 2 236 48.975 426.803 < 0.001 0.293 3.851 × 1015
T 1 118 93.740 7567.068 < 0.001 0.443 2.732 × 1013
S × T 2 236 0.065 426.803 0.937 0.001 0.059
Oddball ask (p opo ion co ec )
S 2 236 0.670 0.003 0.512 0.006 0.056
T 1 118 14.739 .029 < 0.001 0.111 113.336
S × T 2 236 0.443 0.003 0.643 0.004 0.094
Recogni ion ask (d)
S 1 118 0.550 0.594 0.460 0.005 0.179
T 1 118 0.246 1.147 0.621 0.002 0.213
S × T 1 118 0.015 0.594 0.902 < 0.001 0.205
Recogni ion ask (C)
S 1 118 141.111 0.141 < 0.001 .545 3.984 × 1020
T 1 118 5.361 0.258 0.022 0.043 1.102
S × T 1 118 0.207 0.141 0.650 0.002 0.199
Recogni ion ask (RTs)
S 1 118 1.168 20,530.536 0.282 0.010 0.155
T 1 118 1.606 139,233.895 0.208 0.013 0.451
P 1 118 0.107 29,385.656 0.744 0.001 0.107
S × T 1 118 0.980 20,530.536 0.324 0.008 0.203
S × P 1 118 13.267 29,385.656 < 0.001 0.101 118.706
T × P 1 118 0.234 29,385.656 0.629 0.002 0.146
S × T × P 1 118 0.446 24,398.730 0.506 0.004 0.267
1808 Psychological Resea ch (2020) 84:1801–1814
1 3
We calcula ed he sensi i i y index (d′) o each o he wo
ypes o de ian wo d (disgus ing and neu al de ian ). As
isible in Fig.2a, no di e ence was obse ed be ween he
wo ypes o de ian wo d, (119) = 0.745, dz = 0.068, 95%
CI − 0.111 o 0.247, p = 0.458, BF10 = 0.133. Fu he mo e,
no co ela ion was obse ed be ween he di e ence in d′
be ween he wo ypes o de ian wo ds and he pa icipan ’s
sensi i i y o disgus ( = 0.052, 95% CI − 0.129 o 0.229,
p = 0.574, BF10 = 0.133). In sum, bo h equen is and Bayes-
ian s a is ics e ealed ha pa icipan s ecognized disgus ing
and neu al de ian wo ds equally well, i espec i e o hei
sensi i i y o disgus .
The decision c i e ion (C) was signi ican ly lowe o dis-
gus ing de ian wo ds han o neu al de ian wo ds, indi-
ca ing ha pa icipan s we e mo e inclined o espond “yes”
o disgus ing p obes, (119) = 11.919, dz = 1.088, 95% CI
0.861–1.313, p < 0.001, BF10 = 9.157 × 1018 (see Fig.2b). This
di e ence in decision c i e ion (Cdisgus − Cneu al) did no co -
ela e wi h he pa icipan s’ sensi i i y o disgus ( = − 0.122,
95% CI − 0.295 o 0.058, p = 0.184, BF10 = 0.273). The esul s
indica e ha pa icipan s adop ed a mo e libe al decision c i-
e ion o disgus ing wo d han o neu al wo ds, which was
no ela ed o hei sensi i i y o disgus .
Mean esponse imes (RTs) we e analyzed using a 2 ( ype
o sound: disgus ing, neu al) × 2 (p obe ype: nega i e,
posi i e) ANOVA o epea ed measu es. Nei he he main
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
515
520
525
530
535
540
545
550
555
560
Disgus Neu al S anda d
Sound Condion
Mean P opo on Co ec
Mean RT (ms)
Fig. 1 Mean esponse imes (ba s) and mean p opo ion o co ec
esponses (da a poin s) in he h ee sound condi ions o he c oss-
modal oddball ask. E o ba s ep esen s 95% CIs based on he main
e ec o sound condi ion ollowing Ja masz and Hollands (2009)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Disgus Neu al
Sensi i y I ndex (d')
Sound Condion
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Disgus Neu al
Decision C i e ion (C)
Sound CondionSound Condion
400
450
500
550
600
650
Disgus Neu al
Mean RT (ms)
Nega e P obe
Posi e P obe
ab
c
Fig. 2 Mean sensi i i y index (d′), mean decision c i e ion (C) and
mean esponse imes (RTs) in he ecogni ion asks (a–c, espec-
i ely) o he disgus ing and neu al wo ds used as dis ac o s in he
c oss-modal oddball ask. E o ba s ep esen s 95% CIs based on
he main e ec o sound condi ion ollowing Ja masz and Hollands
(2009)
1809Psychological Resea ch (2020) 84:1801–1814
1 3
e ec o sound ype (F(1,119) = 1.168, MSE = 20,527.121,
𝜂2
p
= 0.010, p = 0.282, BF10 = 0.161), no ha o he ype o
p obe (F(1,119) = 0.108, MSE = 29,196.523,
𝜂2
p
= 0.001,
p = 0.743, BF10 = 0.107), we e s a is ically signi ican .
Howe e , he sound ype × p obe ype in e ac ion was sig-
ni ican (F(1,119) = 13.329, MSE = 24,285.124,
𝜂2
p
= 0.101,
p < 0.001, BF10 = 63.941). Follow-up es s e ealed
ha disgus ing wo ds yielded signi ican ly slowe RTs
han neu al wo ds o nega i e p obes ( (119) = 2.707,
ΔM = 37.803, dz = 0.247, 95% CI 0.065–0.428, p = 0.008,
BF10 = 3.284), while he e e se was obse ed o posi i e
p obes ( (119) = − 2.812, dz = − 0.257, 95% CI − 0.438 o
− 0.074, p = 0.006, BF10 = 4.288). These esul s a e illus-
a ed in Fig.2c. The di e ence be ween disgus ing and
neu al wo ds did no co ela e wi h he pa icipan s’ sen-
si i i y o disgus o any o he wo ypes o p obes (nega-
i e p obes: = −0.074, 95% CI − 0.250 o 0.107, p = 0.424,
BF10 = 0.157: posi i e p obes: = − 0.095, 95% CI − 0.270
o 0.085, p = 0.300, BF10 = 0.194). This pa e n o esponse
imes is compa ible wi h he inding ha disgus ing wo ds
bias decisions owa d a posi i e esponse. Fo posi i e
p obes, his speeds up esponses o disgus ing wo ds. How-
e e , o nega i e p obes, his bias mus be cancelled ou
o selec a nega i e esponse, he eby leng hening RTs o
disgus ing wo ds ela i e o neu al wo ds.
Discussion
In his s udy, we used a c oss-modal oddball ask o examine
he ex en o which unexpec ed disgus ing and neu al i ele-
an audi o y wo ds yielded beha io al dis ac ion in a c oss-
modal oddball ask. We hen used a su p ise ecogni ion ask
o measu e he s eng h o hese wo ds in he pa icipan s’
memo y. F equen is and Bayesian s a is ics e ealed ha
disgus ing and neu al wo ds yielded equi alen le els o
dis ac ion in he c oss-modal oddball ask, and ha bo h
ypes o wo ds we e equally well disc imina ed om new
wo ds in he ecogni ion ask.
While pas wo k showed ha de ian wo ds unde go
seman ic analysis (e.g., Pa men ie , 2008; Sh y o e al.,
2004), and despi e abundan sugges ions ha nega i e
emo ional s imuli a e p ominen dis ac o s (Ande son,
2005; Blanche e, 2006; Cha ash & McKay, 2002; Ohman
e al., 2001), we know o only one oddball s udy examin-
ing whe he de ian sounds wi h emo ional con en media e
beha io al dis ac ion and which ound no di e ence be ween
nega i e and neu al de ian wo ds (Ljungbe g & Pa men ie ,
2012). Tha la e s udy p esen s wo impo an limi a ions,
howe e : he lack o con ol o psycholinguis ic cha ac e is-
ics o he de ian wo ds, and he use o nega i e wo ds ha
did no ela e o a speci ic and iden i ied emo ion. Ou s udy
ocused on a speci ic emo ion, namely disgus , and showed
ha disgus ing and neu al wo ds ma ched wi h espec o a
la ge numbe o psycholinguis ic a iables p oduce equi a-
len le els o dis ac ion in a c oss-modal oddball ask.
Ou indings depa om he p oposi ion ha disgus ing
wo ds a e mo e po en a a ac ing a en ion and lea ing
aces in memo y han neu al wo ds (Cha ash & McKay,
2002; Fe é e al., 2017). I is wo h poin ing ou ha his
p oposi ion de i ed om e idence acqui ed using asks in
which he emo ional in o ma ion was con eyed by he e y
s imuli pa icipan s had o a end. Indeed, Cha ash and McKay
(2002) used a colo naming S oop ask in which he same
s imulus con eyed bo h ele an (colo ) and i ele an (mean-
ing) ea u es, and Fe é e al. (2017) used a lexical decision
ask. In bo h s udies, disgus ing wo ds yielded longe RTs and
s onge memo y aces han neu al wo ds. Using a ask in
which he emo ional in o ma ion was ca ied by a ask-i ele-
an dis ac o , empo ally and pe cep ually dis inc om he
a ge s imuli, we ound no di e ence be ween disgus ing and
neu al wo ds wi h espec o a en ional dis ac ion o mem-
o y disc iminabili y. This absence o di e ence was obse ed
ega dless o he p ima y ask’s demands on seman ic p o-
cessing (ca ego izing digi s as odd o e en e sus ca ego iz-
ing wo ds based on hei seman ic ca ego y). Tha is, adop -
ing a seman ic p ocessing mode in he p ima y ask did no
a ec he ex en o which he seman ics o he de ian wo ds
a ec ed dis ac ion o memo y pe o mance. While e idence
om o he pa adigms sugges ha he p ocessing o dis ac-
o s can be modula ed by he ex en o which i o e laps wi h
he demands o he p ima y ask (Ma sh e al., 2008; Sasin
e al., 2015; So o e al., 2005), his does no seem o apply o
he c oss-modal oddball ask, a leas as we implemen ed i .
Fu he mo e, ou esul s consis en ly showed ha he e ec
o he disgus ing wo ds ela i e o ha o neu al wo ds we e
un ela ed o he pa icipan s’ sensi i i y o disgus . While sen-
si i i y o disgus has been ound o in luence olun a y lexi-
cal p ocessing (Sil a e al., 2012), ou esul s sugges ha i
does no a ec he in olun a y lexico-seman ic p ocessing o
he de ian wo ds. Indeed, e idence indica es ha di e ences
in lexical p ocessing be ween disgus ing and neu al wo ds
esul s in be e pe o mance in inciden al ecogni ion o ecall
asks (Fe é e al., 2017). In ou s udy, disgus ing and neu al
wo ds yielded equi alen le els o memo y disc iminabili y
(as measu ed by he sensi i i y index in he ecogni ion ask).
Howe e , disgus ing and neu al wo ds did p oduce di -
e en e ec s on he decision c i e ion (C) and esponse
imes (RTs) in he ecogni ion ask. These indings i wi h
he inding ha nega i e and a ousing s imuli bias decisions
owa d he “yes” esponse in ecogni ion asks (e.g., Dougal
& Ro ello, 2007; Windmann & Ku as, 2001). In hese ci -
cums ances, i is no su p ising o ind ha esponse imes
a e as e o posi i e p obes (i.e., p obes equi ing he “yes”
esponse) han o nega i e p obes (which equi e he inhibi-
ion o he po en “yes” esponse o selec and execu e he