Ies [FIGS]; Maxwell, 1992). Testing Session Procedures Prior to testing, participants abstained for >3 hr from caffeine and/or smoking/nicotine, too as from alcohol/drugs (besides contraceptives and medication required for any stabilized physical situation) starting at midnight. Upon arrival to the laboratory, subjective mood evaluations were carried out. Concurrently, electrodes had been applied, following which the experiment commenced. This study was approved by the Royal Ottawa Wellness Care Group as well as the University of Ottawa Social Sciences and Humanities Analysis Ethics AVP manufacturer Boards and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Participants wereJ Affect Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 February 1.Jaworska et al.Pagecompensated 30.00 CDN/session (individuals participated in several sessions as a part of a larger study).NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptSubjective Mood Questionnaires Mood was assessed together with the Profile of Mood States (POMS; McNair et al., 1992) on which participants rated their subjective state utilizing a Likert scale on 65 mood adjectives, from which values had been aggregated to form seven mood dimensions (tension-anxiety, depressiondejection, anger-hostility, vigor-activity, fatigue-inertia, confusion-bewilderment and total mood disturbance). Emotional Faces Recognition Job The faces recognition activity was adapted from Krolak-Salmon et al. (2001). Thirty-six photographic faces displaying among 4 expressions (sadness [sad], joy, surprise [sur], neutral) were presented individually on a screen in front from the seated participant ( 1 m) in a dim, electrically-shielded and sound-attenuated room. Every emotion was expressed at 3 intensities (20 , 50 , one hundred ) by one particular actor. Two males and two females displayed a single emotion at all intensities (i.e., 16 actors). Expressions at 20 intensity were viewed as “neutral” as they are not reliably distinguished (Orgeta Phillips, 2008) and 0 expressions are much more likely to be confused with damaging than with other facial expressions (Palermo Coltheart, 2004). Photographs were digitized and converted to grey-scale photos, matched for luminance and contrast, using the neck and hair cropped out (Figure 1). Every expression (neutral, sad50, sad100, joy50, joy100, sur50, sur100) was pseudorandomly presented 80 times (no identical faces presented back-to-back) for 400 ms (ISI: 1500 ms; Presentation Computer software, Neurobehavioral Systems, Albany, CA, USA). Participants pressed a button to surprised faces (sur50, sur100) to ensure that they paid interest to expressions. Hits ( right responses to sur50 sur100), false alarms (FA; responses to non-surprised faces) and reaction times (RT) were recorded. Facial Expression Rating Questionnaire After the process, participants rated 10 faces (a single male and one particular female expressing each of joy50, joy100, sad50, sad100 and neutral) presented through the task. Faces have been rated using a Likert scale from 0 (not at all) to ten (extremely a lot) on two valence questions: how 1) “sad” and 2) “happy” does the face look. Participants rated the faces determined by their gut reaction, taking 2? min to price all faces. Two questionnaire versions, containing distinctive faces but bearing precisely the same expressions, were administered. No differences existed in between the versions, as a result, ratings have been averaged across the questionnaires. Electrophysiological Recordings PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21228935/ Information Reduction EEG activity was recorded (500 Hz) utilizing a cap embedded.