
==== Front
PLoS One
PLoS One
plos
PLOS ONE
1932-6203
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

10.1371/journal.pone.0310502
PONE-D-23-34024
Research Article
Medicine and Health Sciences
Mental Health and Psychiatry
Psychological Stress
Biology and Life Sciences
Psychology
Psychological Stress
Social Sciences
Psychology
Psychological Stress
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Psychology
Attention
Biology and Life Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Attention
Social Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Attention
Biology and Life Sciences
Physiology
Biological Locomotion
Walking
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Neuroscience
Reaction Time
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Cognitive Neuroscience
Reaction Time
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Psychology
Perception
Sensory Perception
Biology and Life Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Perception
Sensory Perception
Social Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Perception
Sensory Perception
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Sensory Perception
Physical Sciences
Physics
Classical Mechanics
Motion
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Psychology
Perception
Sensory Perception
Vision
Biology and Life Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Perception
Sensory Perception
Vision
Social Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Perception
Sensory Perception
Vision
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Sensory Perception
Vision
Research and Analysis Methods
Bioassays and Physiological Analysis
Electrophysiological Techniques
Brain Electrophysiology
Electroencephalography
Event-Related Potentials
Biology and Life Sciences
Physiology
Electrophysiology
Neurophysiology
Brain Electrophysiology
Electroencephalography
Event-Related Potentials
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Neurophysiology
Brain Electrophysiology
Electroencephalography
Event-Related Potentials
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Brain Mapping
Electroencephalography
Event-Related Potentials
Medicine and Health Sciences
Clinical Medicine
Clinical Neurophysiology
Electroencephalography
Event-Related Potentials
Research and Analysis Methods
Imaging Techniques
Neuroimaging
Electroencephalography
Event-Related Potentials
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Neuroimaging
Electroencephalography
Event-Related Potentials
Effects of acute stress on biological motion perception
Effects of acute stress on biological motion perception
Wang Jifu Conceptualization Data curation Formal analysis Funding acquisition Investigation Methodology Project administration Supervision Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1
Shi Fang Data curation Methodology Supervision Writing – review & editing 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9136-2733
Yu Lin Conceptualization Formal analysis Funding acquisition Methodology Project administration Supervision Writing – review & editing 2 *
1 College of Education and Physical Education, Yangtze University, Jingzhou, China
2 Neurocognition and Action-Biomechanics Research Group, Faculty of Psychology and Sports Science, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany
Mengarelli Alessandro Editor
Universita Politecnica delle Marche Facolta di Ingegneria, ITALY
Competing Interests: NO authors have competing interests.

* E-mail: lin.yu@uni-bielefeld.de
18 9 2024
2024
19 9 e031050213 12 2023
2 9 2024
© 2024 Wang et al
2024
Wang et al
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Biological motion perception is an essential part of the cognitive process. Stress can affect the cognitive process. The present study explored the intrinsic ERP features of the effects of acute psychological stress on biological motion perception. The results contributed scientific evidence for the adaptive behavior changes under acute stress. After a mental arithmetic task was used to induce stress, the paradigm of point-light displays was used to evaluate biological motion perception. Longer reaction time and lower accuracy were found in the inverted walking condition than in the upright walking condition, which was called the "inversion effect". The P2 peak amplitude and the LPP mean amplitude were significantly higher in the local inverted perception than in the local upright walking condition. Compared to the control condition, the stress condition induced lower RT, shorter P1 peak latency of biological motion perception, lower P2 peak amplitude and LPP mean amplitude, and higher N330 peak amplitude. There was an "inversion effect" in biological motion perception. This effect was related to the structural characteristics of biological motion perception but unrelated to the state of acute psychological stress. Acute psychological stress accelerated the reaction time and enhanced attention control of biological motion perception. Attention resources were used earlier, and less attentional investment was made in the early stage of biological motion perception processing. In the late stage, a continuous weakening of inhibition was shown in the parieto-occipital area.

http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100012554 Hubei Provincial Department of Education Q20221313 Wang Jifu http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013139 Humanities and Social Science Fund of Ministry of Education of China 23YJCZH206 Wang Jifu The present study was supported by Humanities and Social Sciences Projects Funded by the Ministry of Education (Grant No. 23YJCZH206), which funded the language editing services for this manuscript. This study was also supported by the Scientific Research Project of the Hubei Provincial Department of Education (Grant No. Q20221313), which funded the cost of experimental supplies and the compensation for participants. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Data AvailabilityData (i.e., EEG and behavioral raw data) for the current study are available here, https://doi.org/10.4119/unibi/2991696.
Data Availability

Data (i.e., EEG and behavioral raw data) for the current study are available here, https://doi.org/10.4119/unibi/2991696.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Biological motion perception refers to the perceptual process of judging motion characteristics and gender, and it is typically assessed through biological light spots [1]. This method provides a valuable index of the perception of complex motion patterns in the visual system [2]. The perceiver’s emotional state has been shown to affect biological motion perception [3, 4]. For example, one study found that social anxiety affected the orientation bias of biological movement [3]. Another study found that people judged the speed of biological light spots as significantly faster when in a fear state than in a non-fear state [4]. Research in this area has assessed the influence of emotional state on behavioral measures of biological motion perception. However, no research has explored the internal mechanism of these effects. In the current study, we examined the effects of acute psychological stress on biological motion perception and attention as a mechanism of these effects.

Acute stress appears to affect perceptual processing that depends on the prefrontal cortex by increasing the secretion of norepinephrine and dopamine [5, 6]. Acute stress can be induced by the improved Montreal Imaging Stress Task (MIST) [7]. Attention and cognitive load are both likely to play a role in the link between acute stress and biological motion perception [8, 9]. For example, acute stress has been shown to promote general cognitive function when there is a low cognitive load or when cognitive tasks are simple [10], and acute stress also improves motion-in-depth perception performance under these conditions [11]. Acute stress may have a facilitative effect by accelerating processing speed and enhancing attention [12], attention control [13], and alertness [14]. The processing of local information from biological motion could have appeared to benefit from pre-attention processing [15]. Therefore, it could be speculated that the positive association between acute psychological stress and biological motion perception is mediated by attention control. In the current study, we tested this possibility by assessing the biological motion perception of stimuli that varied in contour characteristic (global or local) and motion characteristic (upright or inverted).

Johansson used point-light displays (PLD) to study people’s ability to recognize biological motion. PLD assesses biological motion perception by providing biological light spot stimulation that carries information about the contour and motion characteristics of the human body [16]. An earlier study using PLD found that people quickly detected the contour and motion characteristic of biological motion when the light spots were dynamically presented, and when the light spots were static, people perceived slower biological movement [17]. When the shape information was fuzzy, the primary basis for people to identify biological motion came from motion information. If the motion information was shielded, people relied on shape information to identify body posture and other social information [17]. In this study, the dynamic diagram of biological light spots was used to evaluate the ability of biological motion perception.

The brain regions involved in biological motion perception include the Superior Temporal Sulcus (STS), Fusiform Gyrus (FG), Lingual Gyrus (LG), and Middle Temporal Area (MT+/V5) [9]. These areas would interact with brain areas responsible for motor planning and would be involved in attention allocation, such as sensorimotor areas and the premotor cortex (PMC) [18]. STS and FG are the critical lobes and are located in the temporal and the occipital temporal lobes, respectively. The post-STS region is mainly responsible for the processing of motion information from light spot stimulation, whereas the FG region is primarily responsible for processing visual information provided by the body [19]. Electroencephalography (EEG) studies have further provided information on the temporal course of brain activation while exposed to PLD, revealing the presence of four event-related potential (ERP) components [20–23]. The first component, P1, is highly associated with the primary feature coding of moving dots pattern, which peaks around 100ms time-locked to the onset of stimulus over the extrastriate cortex [20]. The second component, P2, is one of the indicators to evaluate working memory, which peaks around 200ms (time-locked to the onset of stimulus) over the occipital area [21]. The third component, N330, has been shown to be produced by the processing of perceived biological movement, and it is one of the indicators to evaluate the attentional control of biological motion perception, which peaks around 330ms (time-locked to the onset of stimulus) over the posterior superior temporal sulcus (pSTS) [22]. The fourth component, the late positive potential (LPP), has been suggested to be involved in the process of biological motion perception [23]. Accordingly, based on the above-mentioned findings [20–24], we mainly focused on the ERP components P1, P2, N330, and LPP in this study.

The purpose of this study was to explore attention control as an internal mechanism of the positive effects of acute psychological stress on biological motion perception. The improved MIST task [7] was used to induce acute psychological stress in healthy young adults in the laboratory. The sequence diagram of biological light spots [16] was used to evaluate the biological motion perception. Biological motion perception was assessed using ERP techniques with high temporal resolution. We hypothesized that (a) participants will be faster in processing biological motion perception under the stress vs. control condition, (b) the P1, P2, and N330 ERP components will show shorter latency and higher amplitude under the acute stress vs. control condition, and (c) there will be an "inversion effect" in the process of biological motion perception.

Methods

Participants

G*Power 3.1.9 was used to conduct an a priori power analysis [25]. Using a repeated measures design, the sample size needed to detect a medium effect size (d = 0.25) with power = .80 was 16. Based on this information and on the sample size in a previous study [10], our sample size was set as N = 24 (12 males). A larger sample was used because this could increase the reliability of the experimental results. The mean age of participants was 19.36 (SD = 1.34) years. All participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision, and all were right-handed. This experiment was approved by the Human Experiment Ethics Committee of the first author’s affiliated university.

The 24 college students who volunteered met the following selection criteria: (1) stable emotional state: score > 25 on the Emotional State Assessment Scale [26]; (2) minimal anxiety and depression: score < 48 on the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory [27] and score < 5 on the Beck Depression Inventory [28]; (3) not in a state of loneliness: score < 48 on the UCLA Loneliness Scale [29]; and (4) good spatial thinking ability: score > 75 on the Mosaic Pattern Test [30]. This relative homogeneity reduces the chance that confounding variables will affect the results. All participants provided written informed consent and received 50 RMB (about 7 USD) after the experiment.

Design and stimuli

We employed a 2 (contour characteristic: global vs. local) × 2 (motion characteristic: upright vs. inverted) × 2 (stress level: control vs. stress) within-subjects experimental design. The dependent variables were the reaction time and accuracy of biological motion perception, the peak amplitude and peak latency of P1, P2, and N330, and the mean amplitude of the late positive potentials (LPP).

The modified MIST task paradigm was used to induce acute psychological stress [7]. This paradigm presents 200 multiplication problems (e.g., 2.16 × 4.78; the problem list used in this study can be found in S1 Appendix). Participants are asked to judge whether the multiplication result is larger than ten or less than ten. They are instructed to press f on the keyboard if they think the multiplied result is less than ten and to press j otherwise. The modified MIST task has been shown to have a stress-inducing effect [9, 10, 25]. For example, in one study, the task induced significantly higher self-reported state anxiety and lower positive affect than baseline [11].

Moving light dots were used as stimuli in the assessment of biological motion perception [31]. The dots were five arc points in size, white, had a density of 1.85 points/degree2, and had a moving speed of 4.0°/s. Videos of the light dots on a black background were created using Matlab and Psychtoolbox. All videos were formatted in Windows Media Video (WMV), and the resolution was set at 1024 × 768. The videos were displayed on a 19-inch monitor about 70 cm in front of the participants.

Assessments were made of both global and local biological motion perception. Global biological motion perception was tested using 12 dots representing the main joints of the body, and the dots simulated the movement of the human body walking left or right. Local biological motion perception was tested using four dots representing the foot and the knee joint. Earlier research found that foot movement played a crucial role in the inversion effect of local motion [1, 32].

In order to avoid the effects of different visual angles and the number of dots on the experimental results, a black background was added to present the global and local biological motion dots [33] (see Fig 1). The height of the black background was 115 cm, and the width was 65 cm. The 4 or 12 light dots simulated the movement of the human body walking left or right in the black rectangle. Both global motion and local motion included upright walking and inverted walking, specifically upright left or right walking, inverted left walking, or right walking.

10.1371/journal.pone.0310502.g001 Fig 1 A flow chart of the experimental task was used to test the effects of acute psychological stress on biological motion perception.

In the formal experiment, the red arrow will not be marked in the detection interface of biological motion perception.

Procedure

Preparation

The experimenter explained the experimental requirements and precautions to the subjects. Subjects completed the informed consent form, the four self-report scales, and the handedness questionnaire. During the experiment, the subjects were asked to look ahead, remain 70 cm from the computer screen, and try not to shake their body. To adjust the breathing rhythm, participants were then asked to look at a relaxing picture presented on the screen and imagine themselves immersed in the relaxed scene.

Practice and formal experiment

Feedback was provided in the practice trials but not in the formal experiment. Under the stress condition, the feedback interface presented the reaction time (RT) and a comparison between the subject’s reaction time (RT) and that of the average person. The RTs of the average person were fabricated based on about 700 random numbers. Under the control condition, a set of asterisks was presented in the feedback interface. The mental arithmetic items in the practice experiment (10 trials) were different from those in the formal experiment. The formal experiment included two blocks: the control condition (200 trials) and the stress condition (200 trials). Global upright, global inverted, local upright, and local inverted walking each contained 50 trials. In order to eliminate an item effect, the same mental arithmetic items were used in the control and stress conditions.

The interval between the stress and control conditions was 10 minutes. In the global biological motion task, there were 12 light dots showing images similar to human motion. The 12 light dots simulated walking left and right when the moving figure was upright or inverted (upside down). In the local biological motion task, there were four light dots showing images similar to leg motion. The four light dots simulated walking left or right when the moving figure was upright or inverted (upside down). The subjects were instructed, "If the light dots on the screen are walking left, please press f on the keyboard with your left index finger. If the light dots are walking to the right, please press j on the keyboard with your right index finger.”

Behavioral data recording and analysis

Behavioral data (RT and percent accuracy) were collected by E-prime 2.0. SPSS 17.0 software generated descriptive statistics for these variables under the control and stress conditions. A 2 (contour characteristic: global vs. local) × 2 (motion characteristic: upright vs. inverted) × 2 (stress level: control vs. stress) repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) was used to test differences in RT across conditions. If a main effect was significant, the LSD post hoc test was performed. If an interaction was significant, a simple effect analysis was performed. Differences across conditions in percent accuracy were tested with chi-square analysis.

Electrophysiological recording and analysis

Brain activations were recorded using a 64-channel EEG amplifier with Brain Vision Recorder software (Brain Products, Munich, Germany). According to the international 10–10 system, 64 electrodes were placed on an elastic cap. The impedance of all electrode sites was under five kΩ. The electrode FCz was used as the recording reference, and the electrode AFz was selected as the recording ground. Two extra electrodes were used to record horizontal and vertical electrooculography (EOG). All signals were sampled at 1000 Hz before digitization and filtered from 0.01 to 100 Hz online.

EEG raw signals were processed offline with the Brain Vision Analyzer software (version 2.0). The range of the IIR filter was 0.01 to 35 Hz in the processing of EEG data offline. Independent component analysis (ICA) was applied for EOG correction [34]. The semiautomatic mode of ocular correction was used to eliminate the EOG component in the blink interval. The length of the ICA interval was 50 s. The duration of EEG superposition was the 1200 ms epoch (time-locked to the onset of the light dots), and the period of the first 200 ms was used for baseline correction. Trials with artifact rejection (peak-to-peak amplitude larger than 80 μV) were removed from the grand average. The average number of superpositions in each trial was 42. This number met the minimum requirement of 30 proposed in a previous study [35].

The ERP components’ electrode sites and time windows were selected based on the grand average of ERPs and the results of previous studies [36, 37]. The PO3, O1, POz, O2, and PO4 (70–140 ms) sites were selected for the P1 peak latency and amplitude. The P3, P5, P4, and P6 (150–250 ms) sites were selected for the P2 peak latency and amplitude. The Fz and F1 (200–350 ms) sites were selected for the N330 peak latency and amplitude. The CPz, CP1, and CP2 (400–800 ms) sites were chosen for LPP. According to the time window of each component, the peak latency and amplitude were measured by baseline-peak. Main effects were tested by repeated measures analysis of variance, and simple effects analyses were used to interpret any interaction effects. The Greenhouse–Geisser correction was used to adjust for sphericity violations when there was a factor with more than two levels.

Results

Stress manipulation check

Previous studies found that the improved MIST task can induce acute psychological stress, showing lower positive psychological arousal levels and higher state anxiety [11, 38]. In the mental arithmetic task, the results showed that the RT was longer in the control condition versus the stress condition, t = -8.19, p < .01. In terms of accuracy, the control condition was significantly higher than the stress condition (χ2 = 20.38, p < .01). Combined with the previous results [11, 13, 39], our results suggest that the MIST task effectively induced stress.

Behavioral data

Reaction time

In terms of biological motion perception tasks, the main effect of stress level was significant, F(1,23) = 9.78, p < .01, ηp2 = .30, Mstress<Mcontrol, see Fig 2. The main effect of contour characteristic was not significant, F(1,23) = 1.36, p > .05, ηp2 = .06. The main effect of motion characteristic was significant, F(1,23) = 161.49, p < .01, ηp2 = .88, Mupright<Minverted. The interaction effect between the contour characteristic and motion characteristic was significant, F(1,23) = 17.47, p < .01, ηp2 = .43. Simple effects analyses showed that the RT of global motion was significantly shorter than that of the local motion in the upright walking condition (p < .01). RT of upright walking was significantly shorter than that of inverted walking in global or local motion conditions. There was no significant difference in the two-way interaction of the three independent variables (p > .05). The reaction time for each condition can be seen in Fig 2.

10.1371/journal.pone.0310502.g002 Fig 2 Reaction time for different experimental conditions.

Accuracy

A chi-square test was conducted to detect accuracy differences across stress levels, motion characteristics, and contour characteristics. There was no significant difference between the control condition and stress condition, χ2 = 0.29, df = 1, p > .05. There was a significant effect between the inverted walking and upright walking condition, χ2 = 29.85, df = 1, p < .01, Mupright>Minverted. There was no significant difference between the global and local motion condition, χ2 = 3.06, df = 1, p > .05. There was no significant difference in the two-way interaction of the three independent variables (p > .05).

Electrophysiological data

P1 peak latency

The main effect of stress level was not significant, F(1,23) = 3.13, p = .09, ηp2 = .12, Mstress = 109.82ms, Mcontrol = 111.16ms. The main effect of the contour characteristic was not significant, F(1,23) = 0.19, p > .05, ηp2 = .01. The main effect of motion characteristic was significant, F(1,23) = 8.66, p < .01, ηp2 = .27, Mupright = 111.76 ms, Minverted = 109.22 ms. Post hoc testing showed that the P1 peak latency of inverted walking was significantly longer than that of upright walking (p < .01), and this P1 peak latency was the average of PO3, O1, POz, O2, and PO4 sites. The main effect of the electrode site was significant, F(2.94,67.75) = 7.39, p < .01, ηp2 = .24. Post hoc testing showed that P1 peak latency was significantly shorter at POz than at O1 and O2 electrode sites (p < .01), and the other pairwise comparisons were not significant (p > .05).

The interaction effect between the contour characteristic and motion characteristic was significant, F(1, 23) = 7.93, p = .01, ηp2 = .26. Simple effects analyses showed that the P1 peak latency of inverted walking was significantly longer than that of upright walking in local motion condition (p < .01). The P1 peak latency of local motion was shorter than that of global motion in upright walking condition (p < .05). The interaction effect of electrode site, contour characteristic and motion characteristic was significant, F(1, 23) = 3.40, p = .01, ηp2 = .13. Simple effects analyses showed that P1 peak latency of inverted walking was significantly longer than that of the upright walking in the PO3 or O1 sites and local motion conditions (p < .01). The P1 peak latency of local motion was significantly shorter than that of the global motion in the PO3 or O1 sites and upright walking condition (p < .05). The P1 latency induced of local motion was significantly longer than that of global motion in the O1 site and inverted walking condition (p < .05). The P1 latency for each condition can be found in Fig 3.

10.1371/journal.pone.0310502.g003 Fig 3 P1 peak latency for different contour and motion characteristics over the selected electrodes.

Please note that the latency data illustrated here is the average of the stress and control conditions (because the effect of stress level was not significant).

P1 peak amplitude

The main effect of stress level was not significant, F(1, 23) = 0.53, p > .05, ηp2 = .02. The main effect of contour characteristic was significant, F(1,23) = 4.94, p < .05, ηp2 = .18, Mlocal = 6.70 μV, Mglobal = 7.12 μV. Post hoc testing showed that the P1 peak amplitude of global motion was significantly higher than that of local motion (p < .05). The main effect of motion characteristic was not significant, F(1,23) = 1.75, p > .05, ηp2 = .07. The main effect of electrode site was not significant, F(2.46,56.66) = 0.46, p > .05, ηp2 = .02. The interaction effect between the contour characteristic and motion characteristic was significant, F(1,23) = 12.67, p < .01, ηp2 = .36. Simple effects analyses showed that P1 peak amplitude of inverted walking was significantly lower than that of upright walking in global motion (p < .01, Fig 4A). The P1 peak amplitude of global motion was significantly higher than that of local motion in the upright walking condition (p < .01).

10.1371/journal.pone.0310502.g004 Fig 4 Waveforms for the P1 component in different conditions.

(A) Each trace represents the grand average waveform of the P1 component at the electrode O1. The different colors illustrate the various experimental conditions. (B) The topographic map demonstrates the difference between global upright and global inverted. The red area indicates where the P1 component appears, and there is a meaningful difference between the two conditions. (C) P1 peak amplitudes for different conditions (averaged results among different stress levels and electrodes because of the non-significant effects).

P2 peak latency

The main effect of stress level was not significant, F(1, 23) = 2.72, p > .05, ηp2 = .11. The main effect of contour characteristic was not significant, F(1,23) = 3.02, p > .05, ηp2 = .12. The main effect of motion characteristic was significant, F(1,23) = 23.07, p < .01, ηp2 = .50, Mupright = 243.19 ms, Minverted = 254.58 ms. Post hoc testing showed that the P2 peak latency of upright walking was significantly shorter than that of inverted walking (p < .01). The main effect of the electrode site was not significant, F(1.22,28.10) = 0.87, p > .05, ηp2 = .04. The interaction effect between motion characteristic and contour characteristic was significant, F(1,23) = 12.83, p < .01, ηp2 = .36. Simple effects analyses showed that the P2 peak latency of inverted walking was significantly longer than that of upright walking in the local motion condition (p < .01, Figs 5 and 6A). The P2 peak latency of local motion was significantly shorter than that of global motion in the upright walking condition (p < .01, Figs 5 and 6B).

10.1371/journal.pone.0310502.g005 Fig 5 P2 peak latency for each condition.

Please note that the illustrated data above are the averaged results of different stress levels and electrodes.

10.1371/journal.pone.0310502.g006 Fig 6 Waveforms for the P2 component in different conditions.

(A) Each trace represents the grand average waveform of the P2 component for local motion conditions between different stress levels and motion characteristics at the electrode P3. (B) Each trace represents the grand average waveform of the P2 component for local motion conditions between different stress levels and contour characteristics at the electrode P4.

P2 peak amplitude

The main effect of stress level was significant, F(1,23) = 8.84, p < .01, ηp2 = .28, Mstress = 7.20 μV, Mcontrol = 8.62 μV. Post hoc testing showed that the P2 peak amplitude of the stress condition was significantly lower than that of the control condition (p < .01, Fig 6A). The main effect of contour characteristic was not significant, F(1,23) = 0.40, p > .05, ηp2 = .02. The main effect of motion characteristic was significant, F(1,23) = 22.24, p < .01, ηp2 = .49, Mupright = 7.23 μV, Minverted = 8.60 μV. Post hoc testing showed that the P2 peak amplitude of inverted walking was significantly higher than that of upright walking (p < .01). The main effect of the electrode site was significant, F(1.51,34.76) = 3.82, p < .05, ηp2 = .14. Post hoc testing showed that the P2 peak amplitude of the P3 site was significantly higher than that of the P5 site (p < .01). The P2 peak amplitude of the P4 site was significantly higher than that of the P6 site (p < .05). There was no significant difference between the other two sites (p > .05).

The interaction effect between the electrode site and contour characteristic was significant, F(2.15,49.48) = 10.31, p < .01, ηp2 = .31. Simple effects analyses showed that the P2 peak amplitude of the P3 site was significantly higher than that of the P5 site in local motion or global motion conditions (p < .01). The P2 peak amplitude of the P4 site was significantly higher than that of the P6 site in the global motion condition (p < .01). The P2 peak amplitude of local motion was significantly higher than that of global motion at the P6 site condition (p < .01). The interaction effects between stress level, electrode site, and motion characteristic were marginally significant, F(1.58,36.33) = 3.40, p = .06, ηp2 = .13. Simple effects analyses showed that P2 peak amplitude of inverted walking was significantly higher than that of upright walking regardless of electrode sites and stress levels (p < .05). The P2 peak amplitude of stress condition was significantly lower than that of control condition regardless of electrode sites and motion characteristic (p < .05, Fig 6A).

The interaction effect between motion characteristic and contour characteristic was significant, F(1,23) = 82.96, p < .01, ηp2 = .78. Simple effects analyses showed that the P2 peak amplitude of inverted walking was significantly higher than that of upright walking under the local motion condition (p < .01). The P2 peak amplitude of inverted walking was significantly lower than that of upright walking under the global motion condition (p < .01). The P2 peak amplitude of local motion was significantly higher than that of global motion under the inverted walking condition (p < .01). The P2 peak amplitude of local motion was significantly lower than that of global motion under the upright walking condition (p < .01). The interaction effect of electrode site, motion characteristic and contour characteristic was significant, F(2.23,51.35) = 5.98, p < .01, ηp2 = .21. The P2 waveforms for the global-upright conditions can be found in Fig 7.

10.1371/journal.pone.0310502.g007 Fig 7 Waveforms for the P2 component in different stress levels of the “global-upright” conditions.

(A) Each trace represents the grand average waveform of the P2 component at the electrode P3 (global upright). The different lines illustrate the different stress levels. The topographic map indicated the difference between the control and stress conditions. (B) The red area indicates where the P2 component appears, and there is a meaningful difference between the two conditions.

N330 peak latency

The main effect of stress level was not significant, F(1,23) = 0.10, p > .05, ηp2 = .004. The main effect of contour characteristic was significant, F(1,23) = 25.95, p < .01, ηp2 = .53, Mlocal = 302.26 ms, Mglobal = 322.33 ms. Post hoc testing showed that the N330 peak latency of local motion was significantly shorter than that of global motion (p < .01). The main effect of motion characteristic was significant, F(1,23) = 27.76, p < .01, ηp2 = .55, Mupright = 299.55 ms, Minverted = 325.04 ms. Post hoc testing showed that the N330 peak latency of inverted walking was significantly longer than that of upright motion (p < .01). The main effect of the electrode site was not significant, F(1,23) = 0.84, p > .05, ηp2 = .04. The interaction effect between electrode site and contour characteristic was significant, F(1,23) = 5.23, p < .05, ηp2 = .19. Simple effects analyses showed that N330 peak latency of local motion was significantly shorter than that of global motion at Fz or F1 electrode sites (p < .01). The interaction effect between contour characteristic and motion characteristic was significant, F(1,23) = 29.20, p < .01, ηp2 = .56. Simple effects analyses showed that the N330 peak latency of inverted walking was significantly longer than that of upright walking under the global motion condition (p < .01). The N330 peak latency of local motion was significantly shorter than that of global motion under the inverted walking condition (p < .01). The N330 waveforms can be seen in the Fig 8.

10.1371/journal.pone.0310502.g008 Fig 8 N330 peak latency for each condition.

N330 peak amplitude

The main effect of stress level was significant, F(1,23) = 9.35, p < .01, ηp2 = .29, Mstress = -6.56 μV, Mcontrol = -4.14 μV. Post hoc testing showed that the N330 peak amplitude of biological motion perception under the stress condition was significantly higher than that under the control condition (p < .01, Fig 9A). The main effect of the contour characteristic was not significant, F(1,23) = 0.17, p > .05, ηp2 = .007. The main effect of motion characteristic was not significant, F(1,23) = 2.97, p > .05, ηp2 = .11. The main effect of electrode site was not significant, F(1,23) = 0.54, p > 0.05, ηp2 = .02. The interaction effect between contour characteristic and motion characteristic was significant, F(1,23) = 12.11, p < .01, ηp2 = .35. Simple effects analyses showed that the N330 peak amplitude of inverted walking was significantly lower than that of upright walking under the local motion condition (p < .01). The N330 peak amplitude of local motion was significantly lower than that of global motion under the inverted walking condition (p < .01).

10.1371/journal.pone.0310502.g009 Fig 9 Waveforms for the N330 component in different conditions.

(A) Each trace represents the grand average waveform of the N330 component at the electrode Fz (global upright). The different lines illustrate the different stress levels in the global upright condition. The topographic map indicated the difference between the stress and control conditions. (B) The blue area indicates where the N330 component appears.

LPP mean amplitude

The main effect of stress level was significant, F(1,23) = 13.68, p < .01, ηp2 = .37, Mstress = 2.83 μV, Mcontrol = 5.03 μV. Post hoc testing showed that the LPP mean amplitude was significantly lower in the stress condition than in the control condition (p < .01, Fig 10A). The main effect of contour characteristic was significant, F(1,23) = 26.58, p < .01, ηp2 = .54, Mlocal = 3.10 μV, Mglobal = 4.77 μV. Post hoc testing showed that the LPP mean amplitude was significantly higher in the global motion condition than in the local motion condition (p < .01). The main effect of motion characteristic was significant, F(1, 23) = 4.60, p < .05, ηp2 = .17, Mupright = 4.36 μV, Minverted = 3.51 μV. Post hoc testing showed that the LPP mean amplitude was significantly higher in the inverted walking condition than in the upright walking condition (p < 0.05). The main effect of the electrode site was significant, F(2,46) = 7.46, p < .01, ηp2 = .25. Post hoc testing showed that LPP mean amplitude of biological motion perception at the CPz was significantly higher than that at the CP1 and CP2 (p < .01).

10.1371/journal.pone.0310502.g010 Fig 10 Waveforms for the LPP in different conditions.

(A) Each trace represents the grand average waveform of LPP at the electrode CPz (global upright). The different lines illustrate the different stress levels in the global upright condition. The topographic map indicated the difference between the control and stress conditions. (B) The first-time segment between 400–500 ms showed the most significant differences between the two conditions.

The interaction effect between electrode site and motion characteristic was significant, F(1.6,36.44) = 7.05, p < .01, ηp2 = .24. The interaction effect between contour characteristic and motion characteristic was significant, F(1,23) = 105.00, p < .01, ηp2 = .82. Simple effects analyses showed that the LPP mean amplitude of the inverted walking was significantly higher than that of the upright walking under the local motion condition (p < .01). The LPP mean amplitude of the inverted walking was significantly lower than that of the upright walking under the global motion condition (p < .01). The LPP mean amplitude of the local motion was significantly higher than that of the global motion under the inverted walking condition (p < .01). The LPP mean amplitude of the local motion was significantly lower than that of the global motion under the upright walking condition (p < .01). There was no significant interaction effect between two factors in the other experimental conditions (p > .05).

Discussion

This study provides empirical evidence that stress improves biological motion perception. RT was shorter, and attention control was better under stress conditions. There was a lower investment of attention resources in the early stage of biological motion perception processing. In the late stage, there was decreased inhibition persistence in the parietal-occipital region. The following sections will discuss these results.

The reaction time in the biological motion perception task was significantly shorter under the stress condition than under the control condition. A previous study found that there was shorter RT but lower accuracy of perceptual processing under the stress condition [40]. Other research showed that participants had a smaller attention range under the time pressure condition, which manifested as faster perceptual speed and lower accuracy [41], and that there was a faster perceptual speed under the stress condition due to the increase in alertness [4]. RT was shorter in the upright walking condition than in the inverted walking condition and was also shorter in the global motion condition than in the local motion condition. The accuracy was higher in the upright walking condition than in the inverted walking condition. These results indicated that there was an "inversion effect" in the process of biological motion perception, with longer RT when the set of light dots representing biological motion was inverted [42]. This inversion effect was induced by the disturbed structural information provided by the light spots [43]. Regardless of whether the information was about global or local motion, and regardless of whether the participants were under stress or not, there was a processing advantage in the upright walking condition.

P1 had shorter peak latency under the stress condition. P1 is the component associated with early visual information processing, which mainly involves the primary feature coding stage of visual information [20]. P1 latency is the time period in which visual information processing occurs. Our results showed that P1 peak latency was longer in the inverted walking condition than in the upright walking condition, suggesting that people need to spend more time on pattern recognition when the motion stimulus is inverted. P1 peak latency was also longer in the global upright condition than in the local upright condition. Participants’ selective attention was likely disrupted by the presentation of more cues (12 lights compared to four lights). P1 peak latency was longer at O1 and O2 than at POz electrode sites, indicating the extrastriate cortex of the central parieto-occipital area was the first to visually encode the moving dot pattern. The P1 peak amplitude was higher in the global upright motion condition than in the global inverted walking condition and the local upright walking condition. That is, compared with the other conditions, participants were more attracted to global upright walking. Finally, high arousal and alertness were induced by acute psychological stress [44]. Stress could make the sensory information input and early visual processing more sensitive [45], causing the P1 component to appear earlier.

The P2 peak latency was shorter in the local upright condition than in the local inverted and global upright conditions. This finding reflects P2’s relationship with working memory skills. Working memory was required to complete the task, but working memory is also important for pattern recognition, in which external information is matched with the information stored in long-term memory [21]. Unlike local inverted walking, local upright walking does not require psychological rotation to process, making identification easier. The pattern recognition of local upright walking conforms to the normal action schema. However, matching speed may be slower because there are more dots to process in the representation of global upright walking than in the representation of local leg movement, and thus P2 appeared later. In addition, P2 peak amplitude was higher in the global upright and local inverted walking conditions than in the global inverted and local upright walking conditions, suggesting a higher allocation of attention in the perceptual judgment task [46, 47] in these conditions. The P2 peak amplitude of the P3 site was higher than that of the P5 site, suggesting that the Lingual Gyrus (LG) in the central occipital area was mainly involved in the pattern recognition of biological motion perception [9]. P2 peak amplitude was lower under the stress condition, indicating higher attention alertness and relatively lower attention resources during the task. That is, due to the influence of stress, the attention resources invested by people in the early stage of biological motion perception were relatively lower than in the control condition.

Stress had substantial effects on the reactivity of the N330 component, suggesting that participants needed to use more attention resources to process the biological motion perception tasks in a highly alert state. This result is consistent with the results of previous research showing that there was a state of high arousal and alertness induced by acute psychological stress [44]. In short, regardless of the motion characteristic and contour characteristic of biological motion, people are likely to show better attention control while perceiving body motion when highly alert. N330 peak amplitude was lower in the local inverted walking condition than in the local upright and global inverted walking conditions. A previous study found that the N330 component was induced by tasks requiring biological motion perception of upright and inverted walking [22]. In the current study, there were more light dots in the global inverted walking task than in the local inverted walking task, with the latter condition requiring less attention resources to identify the direction.

N330 had longer latency under the global inverted walking condition, suggesting that identifying global inverted walking was more difficult than identifying other forms of biological motion. There was reactivity of two negative components, namely N200 and N330, in the process of biological motion perception [48], and N330 is related to the attention process. The N300 peak amplitude was higher in the upright and inverted biological motion conditions than in messy motion [22]. N300 was closely related to the recognition of biological motion patterns. Thus, the results of earlier research and our own research suggest that N330 is a specific negative component of biological motion perception and is related to the attention process and attention control ability.

The LPP had a lower mean amplitude under the stress condition. This result indicated that the inhibition persistence on biological motion perception tasks was weaker under the stress condition than under the control condition. There was a higher attention alertness and a narrower range of attention under stress. More attention resources were needed to cope with the stress, and thus, lower attention resources were required to process the perception of biological motion. The LPP was seen, as in earlier research, as a marker of top-down cognitive processing or the process of actively encoding external information [49]. The LPP component was activated in earlier research by the recognition of human activity and the process of biological motion perception [23]. In the current study, the LPP mean amplitude showed an increase in the process of biological motion perception. In prior research, LPP was used to assess inhibitory ability during visual cortex activity [50]. In addition, we found that the LPP mean amplitude was significantly higher in the global upright and local inverted walking conditions than in the local upright and global inverted walking conditions. The LPP was induced by complex discrimination tasks, such as determining the facing direction of a PLD walker [51]. We can conclude that inhibition persistence was longer in the global upright walking than in the local upright walking, suggesting the speed of pattern recognition was slower in the global upright walking condition than in the local upright walking condition. The inhibition persistence was longer in the local inverted walking than in the global inverted walking, indicating the direction of the PLD walker could be quickly judged by the moving track of the light dots simulating the arm’s movement.

The behavioral results showed that the perceptual processing speed of biological motion perception was faster under the stress condition than under the control condition, and the EEG results showed shorter P1 peak latency and higher N330 peak amplitude under the stress condition than under the control condition. It can be inferred that the shorter RT in biological motion perception tasks under stress was related to the P2 and N330 components. A previous study found that psychological stress can make people more sensitive to the input of sensory information and early visual processing. Specifically, participants had a faster speed of perceptual processing under stress [40]. The ability of attention control has been shown to be improved under stress [52, 53].

In terms of practical significance, the results of this study suggest that acute psychological stress can promote performance on biological motion perception tasks. These results are consistent with the inverted U-shaped hypothesis [54], which is that a moderate level of psychological arousal is helpful to behavior performance in learning tasks. In terms of research limitations, this study used the PLD paradigm to simulate biological motion, but the stimuli are still very different from real human motion. In future research, we can consider using immersive virtual reality technology to study the characteristics of biological motion perception and to improve ecological validity in this line of research. In addition, the results of this study may be affected by stimulus-response compatibility (SRC), which refers to the consistency between the motion direction and the keystroke response. In future research, the keystrokes can be counterbalanced to avoid SRC as a possible confound.

Conclusions

The current study showed that reaction time in the biological motion perception task was faster and the ability of attention control was improved under acute psychological stress. Under stress, attention resources were used earlier and were less invested in the early stage of biological motion perception processing. In the late stage, the inhibition persistence of the parietal-occipital region was weakened under stress. In addition, there was an inversion effect in biological motion perception. This effect was related to the structural characteristics of biological motion perception but not to the state of acute stress.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix Stimulus set about multiplication problems in the experiment.

(DOCX)

S2 Appendix Key/answer mapping analysis for RT and accuracy.

(DOCX)

S3 Appendix Key/answer mapping analysis for ERP.

(DOCX)

The authors would like to sincerely thank everyone who participated in the experiment for sharing their time. The authors also acknowledge support for the publication costs by the Open Access Publication Fund of Bielefeld University and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).

10.1371/journal.pone.0310502.r001
Decision Letter 0
Mengarelli Alessandro Academic Editor
© 2024 Alessandro Mengarelli
2024
Alessandro Mengarelli
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version0
12 Jun 2024

PONE-D-23-34024Effects of Acute Stress on Biological Motion PerceptionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

 Reviewers found value in the work but they raised several concerns that deserve to be carefully considered. In particular, both of them highlighted the need for a more clear presentation of the results, also from the point of view of figure production. Attention shoudl be devoted also in improving readability and soundness.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 27 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alessandro Mengarelli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

 [Humanities and Social Sciences Projects Funded by the Ministry of Education and the Scientific Research Project of Hubei Provincial Department of Education, China (Grant No. Q20221313)].  

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found.

4. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The concept of this study is interesting, but presentation of results is unclear. It would be better to explain the neural origin of each component (P1, P2, N330, especially LPP) and the significance of activity from each region (PO3, O1, POz, O2, PO4 for P1; P3 to P6 for P2; Fz and F1 for N330; CPz, CP1, and CP2 for LPP, also why the regions were selected) in the introduction, and then state what the authors wanted to clarify in this study. Grand average works well for checking the overall waveform, but is not suitable for statistical comparisons of each component. The amplitude and latency of each component of the ERP should be described by a box-and-whisker or bar graph. Since there appears to be more difference in amplitude than in latency for P1, the mean and standard deviation should be plotted to clarify the difference. In the results, the authors should explain why there is a difference between P3 and P5 sites in the peak amplitude of P2 component, and should also state what the difference means. Similarly, describe the behavioral data using figures.

The comparison of motion characteristic especially between “Global” and “Local” may have been influenced more by confusability than by the amount of information; if the Local figure were also placed so that the figure was centered rather than up and down, it would not be equivalent, but the confusability could be closer to that of the whole body. This is just a comment and please consider that next time. P1 should discuss which site caused the difference in latency and what its significance is. Since P1Peak is expressed at each site, we should discuss what this component indicates.

Minor comments

L239-240 It says that there is a significant difference in post-hoc P1 peak latency, but does not indicate which site.

Figure Legend does not indicate which the region is indicated.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript explores the impact of acute psychological stress on the perception of biological motion and investigates attention as a mediating factor for these effects. The researchers conducted an electrophysiological study to measure evoked responses during a 'bright moving dot' visual scene under conditions of induced stress.

This study is intriguing, but the manuscript is challenging to follow, largely due to problems with the English language.

These points are indicated below:

Line. 42, Rephrase the sentence. > “In the current study, we examined the effects of acute psychological stress on the perceptual processing of biological motion and attention as a mechanism of these effects”

Line 45, Two sentences redundant: “Acute stress can be induced by the improved Montreal Imaging Stress Task (MIST) [7]. The improved MIST task uses multiplication to induce acute stress.”

Line 67 Please rephrase “ In this study, the dynamic sequence diagram of biological light spots was used to study biological motion perception ability”

The volunteer college students, did they receive credit, or money?

“Inversion effect” is not clearly described

Line 150 please rephrase “The mental arithmetic items in the formal experiment (10 trials) were different from those in the formal experiment”.

Line 166, please modify the sentence “In the formal experiment, the red arrow will not be marked.”

Line 186, please rephrase “The length and bad interval free for ICA interval were both 50 s.”

Figure legends are not descriptive enough, they should be more comprehensive. This makes the figures hard to decipher.

Line 465, There needs a better explanation than the current for LPP: “We can conclude that inhibition persistence was longer in the global upright and local inverted walking conditions than in the local upright and global inverted walking conditions.”

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Prof. Dr. Murat Özgören, MD PhD

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10.1371/journal.pone.0310502.r002
Author response to Decision Letter 0
Submission Version1
9 Aug 2024

Journal requirements:

Point 1: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have modified the manuscript to meet PLOS ONE’s style requirements.

Point 2: Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [Humanities and Social Sciences Projects Funded by the Ministry of Education and the Scientific Research Project of Hubei Provincial Department of Education, China (Grant No. Q20221313)].

Response 2: Thank you for the suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have modified in the section of “Funding information”. For details, see the red font on page 25, lines 854-859.

Point 3: In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data.

Response 3: Thank you for the suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have modified in the section of “Support information”. For details, see the red font on page 26, lines 880-885.

Point 4: Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

Response 4: Thanks for your suggestion. We have added a separate file for figure captions in our revised manuscript.

Reviewer#1:

Point 1. The concept of this study is interesting, but presentation of results is unclear. It would be better to explain the neural origin of each component (P1, P2, N330, especially LPP) and the significance of activity from each region (PO3, O1, POz, O2, PO4 for P1; P3 to P6 for P2; Fz and F1 for N330; CPz, CP1, and CP2 for LPP, also why the regions were selected) in the introduction, and then state what the authors wanted to clarify in this study.

Response 1: Thank you for your great suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have modified in the section of “Introduction”. For details, see the red font on page 3-4, lines 89-110.

Point 2. Grand average works well for checking the overall waveform, but is not suitable for statistical comparisons of each component. The amplitude and latency of each component of the ERP should be described by a box-and-whisker or bar graph. Since there appears to be more difference in amplitude than in latency for P1, the mean and standard deviation should be plotted to clarify the difference.

Response 2: Thanks for your suggestion. We totally agree that statistical plots are also needed to illustrate the differences found in the tests. We added several boxplots for the reaction time result, as well as the latency results for the P1, P2, and N330. Please refer to the new plots.

Point 3. In the results, the authors should explain why there is a difference between P3 and P5 sites in the peak amplitude of P2 component, and should also state what the difference means. Similarly, describe the behavioral data using figures.

Response 3: Thank you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have modified in the section of “Discussion”. For details, see the red font on page 22, lines 759-761. We also add a boxplot fir the reaction time results. Please refer to the new Fig.2

Point 4. The comparison of motion characteristic especially between “Global” and “Local” may have been influenced more by confusability than by the amount of information; if the Local figure were also placed so that the figure was centered rather than up and down, it would not be equivalent, but the confusability could be closer to that of the whole body. This is just a comment and please consider that next time. P1 should discuss which site caused the difference in latency and what its significance is. Since P1 Peak is expressed at each site, we should discuss what this component indicates.

Response 4: Thank you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have modified in the section of “Discussion”. For details, see the red font on page 21, lines 739-738.

Minor comments

Point 1. L239-240 It says that there is a significant difference in post-hoc P1 peak latency, but does not indicate which site.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have modified in the section of “Electrophysiological Data”. For details, see the red font on page 12, lines 365-366.

Point 2. Figure Legend does not indicate which the region is indicated.

Response 2: Thanks for your suggestion. We re-arranged the electrode label (legend) in the plots and marked the electrodes on the topographic map and the captions.

Reviewer #2:

Point 1. Line. 42, Rephrase the sentence. “In the current study, we examined the effects of acute psychological stress on the perceptual processing of biological motion and attention as a mechanism of these effects”

Response 1: Thank you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have modified on the page 2, line 55.

Point 2. Line 45, Two sentences redundant: “Acute stress can be induced by the improved Montreal Imaging Stress Task (MIST) [7]. The improved MIST task uses multiplication to induce acute stress.”

Response 2: Thank you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have modified on the page 2, line 59.

Point 3. Line 67 Please rephrase “In this study, the dynamic sequence diagram of biological light spots was used to study biological motion perception ability”

Response 3: Thank you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have modified on the page 3, line 86.

Point 4. The volunteer college students, did they receive credit, or money? “Inversion effect” is not clearly described.

Response 4: Thank you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have modified on the page 5, lines 156-158 and page 1, lines 17-18.

Point 5. Line 150 please rephrase “The mental arithmetic items in the formal experiment (10 trials) were different from those in the formal experiment”.

Response 5: Thank you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have modified on the page 7, line 209.

Point 6. Line 166, please modify the sentence “In the formal experiment, the red arrow will not be marked.”

Response 6: Thank you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have modified on the page 8, lines 236-237.

Point 7. Line 186, please rephrase “The length and bad interval free for ICA interval were both 50 s.”

Response 7: Thank you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have modified on the page 9, line 303.

Point 8. Figure legends are not descriptive enough, they should be more comprehensive. This makes the figures hard to decipher.

Response 8: Thank you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have modified from Fig.1 to Fig.8. The descriptive content was added in the figure legends.

Point 9. Line 465, There needs a better explanation than the current for LPP: “We can conclude that inhibition persistence was longer in the global upright and local inverted walking conditions than in the local upright and global inverted walking conditions.”

Response 9: Thank you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have modified on the pages 23-24, lines 803-819.

Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers (new).docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0310502.r003
Decision Letter 1
Mengarelli Alessandro Academic Editor
© 2024 Alessandro Mengarelli
2024
Alessandro Mengarelli
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version1
2 Sep 2024

Effects of acute stress on biological motion perception

PONE-D-23-34024R1

Dear Dr. Yu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alessandro Mengarelli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

All the Reviewers' concerns have been addressed in a proper way, and the paper is suitable for being published in its present form.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for replying to my comments. The addition of the figure clarifies the difference. Very nice work. I have no further comments.

Reviewer #2: Even though the English is hard to follow the ms has improved substantially. The authors responded to the reviwers comments.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

10.1371/journal.pone.0310502.r004
Acceptance letter
Mengarelli Alessandro Academic Editor
© 2024 Alessandro Mengarelli
2024
Alessandro Mengarelli
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
9 Sep 2024

PONE-D-23-34024R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yu,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Alessandro Mengarelli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE
==== Refs
References

1 Jiang Y , Wang L . Biological motion perception: The roles of global configuration and local motion. Advances in psychological science, 2011, 19 (3 ): 301–311. https://journal.psych.ac.cn /adps/EN/Y2011/V19/I3/301
2 Lange J M Lappe. A model of biological motion perception from configural form cues. Journal of Neuroscience, 2006, 26 (11 ): 2894–2906. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4915-05.2006 16540566
3 Feng YH . The characteristics of facing bias in biological motion perception. Zhejiang University, 2017, 37.
4 Niederhut D. Emotion and the perception of biological motion. College of William and Mary, 2009.
5 Jessica Sänger Laura Bechtold , Schoofs Daniela , et al . The influence of acute stress on attention mechanisms and its electrophysiological correlates. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 2014, 8 (10 ): 1–13. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00353 24478648
6 Arnsten A.F.T . Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2009, 10 (6 ): 410–422. doi: 10.1038/nrn2648 19455173
7 Katarina D , Robert R , Najmeh KM , et al . The Montreal Imaging Stress Task: using functional imaging to investigate the effects of perceiving and processing psychosocial stress in the human brain. J Psychiatry Neurosci, 2005, 30 (5 ): 319–325. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-079X.2005.00261.x 16151536
8 Thornton I.M. , Rensink R.A. , Shiffrar M. Active versus passive processing of biological motion[J]. Perception, 2002, 31 (7 ): 837–853. doi: 10.1068/p3072 12206531
9 Chen TT , Jiang CH , Ding JH . Neural mechanism of the biological motion perception. Chinese journal of applied psychology, 2011, 17 (3 ): 265–274. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-6020.2011.03.009
10 Qi MM , Gao HM , Liu GY . Effect of acute psychological stress on response inhibition: An event-related potential study. Behavioural brain research, 2017, 323 (1 ): 32–37. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2017.01.036 28130173
11 Wang JF , Yu L , He MY , et al . Effect of Acute Psychological Stress on Motion-in-Depth Perception: An Event-Related Potential Study. Advances in cognitive psychology, 2020, 16 (4 ): 353–362. doi: 10.5709/acp-0309-6 33959208
12 Wang JF , He MY , Qi CZ . Effect of acute psychological stress on coherent motion perception: An event-related potential study. China sport science, 2021, 41 (2 ): 69–78, 87. doi: 10.16469/j.css.202102007
13 Qi MM , Gao HM . Acute psychological stress promotes general alertness and attentional control processes: An ERP study. Psychophysiology, 2020, 57 (4 ): 1–15. doi: 10.1111/psyp.13521 31898811
14 Alexander JS , Jeffrey SM , Brenton WM , et al . Stress potentiates early and attenuates late stages of visual processing. Journal of Neuroscience, 2011, 31 (3 ): 1156–1161. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3384-10.2011 21248140
15 Bosbach S. , Prinz W. , Kerzel D. A Simon effect with stationary moving stimuli. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 2004, 30 (1 ): 39–55. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.30.1.39 14769067
16 Johansson G. Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 1973, 14 (2 ): 201–211. doi: 10.3758/BF03212378
17 Thirkettle M , Benton C .P., Scott-Samuel N.E. Contributions of form, motion and task to biological motion perception. Journal of Vision, 2009, 9 (3 ): 1–11. doi: 10.1167/9.3.28 19761316
18 Saygin AP . Superior temporal and premotor brain areas necessary for biological motion perception. Brain, 2007, 130 (9 ): 2452–2461. doi: 10.1093/brain/awm162 17660183
19 Ioannis K , Alison J.W , Paul E.D. Dissociation of extrastriate body and biological-motion selective areas by manipulation of visual-motor congruency. Neuropsychologia, 2009, 47 (14 ): 3118–3124. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.07.012 19643118
20 Luck SJ , Kappenman ES . The Oxford handbook of event-related potential components. Oxford university press, 2011.
21 Finnigan S O’Connell RG ., Cummins TDR ., et al . ERP measures indicate both attention and working memory encoding decrements in aging. Psychophysiology, 2011, 48 (5 ): 601–611. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01128.x 21039584
22 Daniel J , Irene D , Boris S , et al . Structural encoding and recognition of biological motion: evidence from event-related potentials and source analysis. Behavioural Brain Research, 2005, 157 (2 ): 195–204. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2004.06.025 15639170
23 Hajcak G , MacNamara A , Doreen MO . Event-related potentials, emotion, and emotion regulation: an integrative review. Developmental Neuropsychology, 2010, 35 (2 ): 129–155. doi: 10.1080/87565640903526504 20390599
24 Anne K. , Anke B. , Christoph K. , et al . Visual event-related potentials to biological motion stimuli in autism spectrum disorders. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci, 2014, (8): 1214–1222. doi: 10.1093/scan/nst103 23887808
25 Franz F , Edgar E , Albert-Georg Lang , et al . G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 2007, 39 (2 ): 175–191. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146 17695343
26 Qi C.Z. Xu P . Qiu A.H . Liu Y . Xue X.X . Zhu . Mental Arousal Scale for Athlete and Validity Test. J. Wuhan Inst. Phys. Educ, 2007, 41–44. 10.3969/j.issn.1000-520X.2007.06.010.
27 Spielberger C.D. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Anxiety, 1983, 19.
28 Beck A.T. Jama the Journal of the American Medical Association. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1967.
29 Russell DW . UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version3): Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure. Journal of personality assessment, 1996, 66 (1 ): 20–40. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2 8576833
30 Deng Z. Zeng X.Y . The Effects of Field-Dependence Cognitive Style on Problem- Representations and Problem-Representation Changes. Psychol. Sci. 2008, 31 , 814–817. 10.3969/j.issn.1671-6981.2008.04.010.
31 Kim J , Norton D , Mcbain R , et al . Deficient biological motion perception in schizophrenia: results from a motion noise paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 2013, 4 (1 ): 1–12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00391 23847566
32 Chang DHF , Troje NF . Acceleration carries the local inversion effect in biological motion perception. Journal of Vision, 2009, 9 (1 ): 1–17. doi: 10.1167/9.1.19 19761316
33 Hirai M. , Kakigi R. Differential cortical processing of local and global motion information in biological motion: An event-related potential study. J Vis, 2008, 8 (16 ): 1–17. doi: 10.1167/8.16.2 19350710
34 Wang CY , Yan A , Deng W , et al . Effect of Tennis Expertise on Motion-in-Depth Perception at Different Speeds: An Event-Related Potential Study. Brain Sciences, 2022, 12 (9 ): 1160. doi: 10.3390/brainsci12091160 36138895
35 Picton TW , Bentin S , Berg P , et al . Guidelines for using human event-related potentials to study cognition: recording standards and publication criteria. Psychophysiology, 2000, 37 (2 ): 127–152. doi: 10.1111/1469-8986.3720127 10731765
36 Kröger A , Hof K ., Krick C ., et al . Visual Processing of Biological Motion in Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: An Event Related Potential-Study. Plos One, 2014, 9 (2 ): 1–11. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088585 24520402
37 Kröger A , Bletsch A , Krick C , et al . Visual event-related potentials to biological motion stimuli in autism spectrum disorders. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci, 2014, 9 (8 ): 1214–1222. doi: 10.1093/scan/nst103 23887808
38 Wang J , Yu L , Ding F . Effect of Acute Psychological Stress on Speed Perception: An Event-Related Potential Study. Brain Sciences, 2023, 13 (3 ): 423. doi: 10.3390/brainsci13030423 36979233
39 Qi MM , Gao HM , Guan LL , et al . Subjective Stress, Salivary Cortisol, and Electrophysiological Responses to Psychological Stress. Frontiers in Psychology, 2016, 7 (229 ): 1–9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00229 26858668
40 Bertsch K , Böhnke R , Kruk MR , et al . Exogenous cortisol facilitates responses to social threat under high provocation. Hormones and Behavior, 2011, 59 (4 ): 428–434. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2010.12.010 21199658
41 Dambacher M , Hübner R . Time pressure affects the efficiency of perceptual processing in decisions under conflict. Psychological Research, 2014, 79 (1 ): 83–94. doi: 10.1007/s00426-014-0542-z 24487728
42 Bertenthal B.I. , Pinto J. Global processing of biological motion. Psychological Science, 1994, 5 (4 ): 221–224. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00504.x
43 Beintema JA , Lappe M . Perception of biological motion without local image motion. National Academy of Sciences, 2002, 99 (8 ): 5661–5663. doi: 10.1073/pnas.082483699 11960019
44 Wang JJ , Rao HY , Wetmore GS , et al . Perfusion functional MRI reveals cerebral blood flow pattern under psychological stress. PNAS, 2005, 49 (102 ): 17804–17809. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0503082102 16306271
45 Davis M , Whalen PJ . The amygdala: vigilance and emotion. Molecular Psychiatry, 2001, 6 (1 ): 13–34. doi: 10.1038/sj.mp.4000812 11244481
46 Lenartowicz A , Delorme A , Walshaw P .D., et al . Electroencephalography correlates of spatial working memory deficits in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: vigilance, encoding, and maintenance. Journal of Neuroscience, 2014, 34 (4 ): 1171–1182. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1765-13.2014 24453310
47 Löw A. , Weymar M. , Hamm A.O. When Threat Is Near, Get Out of Here: Dynamics of Defensive Behavior During Freezing and Active Avoidance. Psychological Science, 2015, 26 (11 ): 1706–1716. doi: 10.1177/0956797615597332 26408036
48 Hirai M , Senju A , Fukushima H , et al . Active processing of biological motion perception: an ERP study. Cognitive brain research, 2005, 23 (2 ): 387–396. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.11.005 15820645
49 Krakowski AI , Ross LA , Snyder AC , et al . The neurophysiology of human biological motion processing: a high-density electrical mapping study. Neuroimage, 2011, 56 (1 ): 373–383. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.01.058 21276862
50 Nathaniel T , Justin K , Rod D , et al . Emotional scenes elicit more pronounced self-reported emotional experience and greater EPN and LPP modulation when compared to emotional faces. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci, 2014, 14 (2 ): 849–860. doi: 10.3758/s13415-013-0225-z 24374599
51 Chang DHF , Troje NF , Ikegaya Y , Fujita I , Ban H . Spatiotemporal dynamics of responses to biological motion in the human brain. Cortex, 2021, 136 : 124–139. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2020.12.015 33545617
52 Righi S , Mecacci L , Viggiano MP . Anxiety, cognitive self-evaluation and performance: ERP correlates. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 2009, 23 (8 ): 1132–1138. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2009.07.018 19695828
53 Kathryn MH , Manassis K , Marc DL . Neural mechanisms of emotion regulation in childhood anxiety. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 2013, 54 (5 ): 552–564. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02609.x 23046115
54 Yerkes R.M. , Dodson JD. The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 1908, 18 (5 ): 459–482. doi: 10.1002/cne.920180503
