Cognition, Brain, Behavior.

An Interdisciplinary Journal
Copyright © 2019 ASCR Publishing House. All rights reserved.
ISSN: Print 2247-9228, Online 2601-226X
Volume XXIII, No. 3 (September), 155-170
doi:10.24193/cbb.2019.23.09

Different effects of trait and state anxiety on global-local

visual processing following acute stress
Alexandra L. Shilton1, Robin Laycock1,2, Sheila G. Crewther1*
1
Department of Psychology and Counselling, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
2
School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

Abstract

Integration between incoming visual information and internal affect, together

produce our overall perceptions of the world. However, how emotional states
influence perception overall is unclear. The tendency to process visual stimuli as a
global whole before filling in the details is known as ‘global precedence’ and is
traditionally associated with positive emotional states. The current study explored
the effects of individual differences in anxiety and the experimental manipulation of
acute stress on global-local visual processing. Individuals with high trait anxiety
demonstrated greater local interference on the global task at baseline compared to
post-stress, while individuals with low trait anxiety had similar levels of local
interference across conditions. Participants who self-reported small changes in state
anxiety due to the acute stressor (low state anxiety reactivity), showed greater global
interference post-stress compared to baseline, while participants with high state
anxiety reactivity showed less global interference post-stress compared to baseline,
suggesting a stronger local processing bias. These results suggest that trait anxiety
as well as subjective reactivity to stress can have differential effects on global-local
visual processing.

Keywords: anxiety, acute stress, visual processing, global processing, local

processing

It has long been established that humans tend to process the overall structure of a
visual scene (i.e., global level) before the specific detailed elements (i.e., local level),
a phenomenon termed ‘global precedence’ (Navon, 1977). This effect is supported
by a number of more recent studies suggesting visual object processing follows a
coarse-to-fine temporal profile (Bar et al., 2006; Wu, Crouzet, Thorpe, & Fabre-
Thorpe, 2015). Exceptions to this global precedence effect have been related to task
differences, and individual personal factors. Inter- and intra-individual differences in
emotional states and expressions – including mood and anxiety, have been shown to
account for some of these differences in visual perceptual processing, acting to either

*Corresponding author:
E-mail: s.crewther@latrobe.edu.au
156 A. L. Shilton, R. Laycock, S. G. Crewther

heighten or reduce the global precedence effect (Basso, Schefft, Ris, & Dember,
1996; Booth & Happe, 2016; Happe & Frith, 2006; Stuchlíková, Kindlman, & Man,
1996).
All sensory information, whether exteroceptive sensations (i.e., from sight,
sound, touch) or interoceptive sensations (i.e., from organs and joints), is now
recognized as being continuously integrated with contextual internal information to
create our individual perceptions of the world around us (Barrett & Bar, 2009). These
internal representations, along with prior semantic knowledge, are used to generate
meaningful predictions and interpretations of any incoming visual information as we
encounter it in the moment. This process is so rapid that the salience and value of the
incoming visual information is intrinsically incorporated into the very earliest stages
of visual information processing, and not as a separate step after visual recognition
(Laycock, Crewther, & Crewther, 2007). Recognition of the connection between
visual information and emotion has led to useful research into the effects of mood on
visual perceptual processing (Basso et al., 1996; Baumann & Kuhl, 2005; Bocanegra
& Zeelenberg, 2011; Gasper & Clore, 2002; Huntsinger, Clore, & Bar-Anan, 2010;
Mogg & Bradley, 2005).
Despite the well-known impacts of stress on various brain regions and
aspects of cognition (Lupien, McEwen, Gunnar, & Heim, 2009), there are very few
studies that have investigated how acute stress, as well as trait anxiety more
generally, may influence visual perceptual processing. Early research conducted by
Tyler and Tucker (1982) demonstrated that acute stress, induced by anxiety-
provoking verbal instructions, can impact on self-reported anxiety trait measures,
as well as global processing ability as assessed by the Mooney Closure Faces Test
(where perceptual closure is required to detect high contrast two-toned images of
faces). Multiple regressions using trait anxiety, state anxiety, and the interaction of
these variables, were used to predict task performance. The results suggest that trait
anxiety levels interact with increased acute stress (and subsequent increased state
anxiety levels) and specifically, that high trait anxiety had detrimental effects for
global visual processing, while low trait anxiety was associated with positive
effects on global processing. Tyler and Tucker also explored the effects of trait
anxiety on perceptual processing of Navon tasks by measuring accuracy in
detecting whether a briefly presented hierarchical target stimulus consisting of local
and global elements was the same or different to a preceding stimulus (i.e., small
squares assembled to represent an upright triangle or an upside-down triangle).
Differences could thus appear at the global or local level. Although most
participants tended to adopt a more global processing bias, individuals reporting
higher trait anxiety showed less preference for global processing, and hence a
greater local-bias compared to the low trait anxiety individuals. Similarly, other
early studies suggested that trait anxiety was negatively associated with superior
global processing and positively associated with superior local processing (Basso
et al., 1996; Kennelly & Wilcox, 1985).

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

23 (2019) 155-170
 A. L. Shilton, R. Laycock, S. G. Crewther 157

More recently, evidence has accumulated suggesting a link between mood

and global-local processing (de Fockert & Cooper, 2014; Fredrickson & Branigan,
2005; Gasper & Clore, 2002). The typical global bias in Navon task performance was
not found in a non-clinical sample with high depression symptoms (de Fockert &
Cooper, 2014). Other studies have experimentally induced changes in emotional
states and found a reduced global bias for sad compared with happy participants
(Gasper & Clore, 2002). Similarly, induced positive emotions (amusement or
contentment) resulted in more global responses compared with neutral and negative
(anger/disgust or fear/anxiety) emotions, though these induced negative emotions did
not result in more local responses than neutral emotion (Fredrickson & Branigan,
2005).
Thus, although the picture emerging from this literature indicates that
negative mood may be associated with greater local or reduced global processing
there are few studies examining this aspect of visual processing specifically in the
context of anxiety and stress. One example of such a study found that in a sample
with disordered eating behaviors, including many diagnosed eating disorders, trait
anxiety was negatively correlated with global precedence scores on a Navon task,
indicating that anxiety was associated with increased local processing (Becker et al.,
2017).
Other evidence seems argue against a direct relationship between positive
and negative mood with global and local processing, respectively. Huntsinger et al.
(2010) found that positive mood was associated with stronger global processing when
global processing was primed, but was associated with stronger local processing
when local processing was primed. This finding was interpreted as evidence that
emotional states act on the level of visual processing currently primed (Huntsinger et
al., 2010). On the other hand, not all anxiety and stress disorders may have the same
relationship with global local processing. For example, war veterans with Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder were slower to detect local but not global targets on a
Navon task, and also demonstrated a stronger global precedence effect (Vasterling,
Duke, Tomlin, Lowery, & Kaplan, 2004).
Investigations of global/local visual processing have become a common
approach to understanding perceptual anomalies in Autism Spectrum Disorder,
where typically a local bias in processing is reported (Bogdashina, 2016; Dakin &
Frith, 2005; Happe & Frith, 1996; Plaisted, Swettenham, & Rees, 1999). However,
whilst evidence exists that anxiety may tend to narrow the focus of attention, and
strengthen local visual processing, this has not been well replicated in the anxiety
literature in more recent years. This is surprising given the high comorbidity of
anxiety in ASD populations (Mazurek et al., 2013). In particular, although it appears
that trait anxiety correlates with greater local processing (Basso et al., 1996; Kennelly
& Wilcox, 1985; Becker et al., 2017), the role of acute stress on local-global
processing is not well understood. In the current study, it was hypothesised that
participants with high trait anxiety would show a greater preference towards local
processing compared to participants with low trait anxiety. It was also expected that

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

23 (2019) 155-170
158 A. L. Shilton, R. Laycock, S. G. Crewther

acute stress would act to accentuate this local processing bias. A final more
exploratory aim of the current study was to compare participants who subjectively
reacted more strongly to the stress procedure, with those with smaller reactions. This
difference in state anxiety reactivity was utilised in order to determine if those with
higher anxiety reactivity evidenced a particularly significant shift in their visual
processing away from global towards local visual processing.

METHOD

Participants
A total of 60 adults, with a mean age of 23.6 years (SD = 4.4) participated in the
current study, including 48 women and 12 men. Recruitment of participants was
achieved through advertisements at La Trobe University, and online forums, and
resulted in a sample including 48 females and 12 males. Eligibility was assessed using
an online screening questionnaire, with the exclusion criteria being cardiovascular
diseases, severe physical illnesses, hypertension, endocrine disorders, current or
lifetime psychopathology, substance abuse, heavy smoking (>10 cigarettes/day) or
being on any kind of medication known to affect the Hypothalamus Pituitary Adrenal
(HPA) axis. All participants had normal or corrected to normal vision. This project
was approved by the La Trobe University Ethics Committee, and in accordance with
this, all participants provided informed consent. All participants received a small
financial reward in the form of a grocery voucher after completing the laboratory
testing.

Measures and materials

State and trait anxiety
The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI: Form Y) was used to measure both trait
and state anxiety levels utilizing the two separate 20-item self-report scales.
(Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, & Vagg, 1983). For the state anxiety scale,
participants respond to the questions based on ‘how you feel right now, at this
moment’, whereas the trait anxiety scale is based on ‘how you generally feel’.
Participants provided ratings using a 4-point scale. The STAI-Y has good internal
consistency, with studies showing Cronbach’s alpha coefficient ranging between 0.81
and 0.95 for the State scale, and between 0.67 and 0.91 for the Trait scale, and also
having good test-retest reliability, ranging from 0.34 to 0.62 for the State scale, and
0.71 to 0.75 for the Trait scale (for a review see McDowell, 2006).

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

23 (2019) 155-170
 A. L. Shilton, R. Laycock, S. G. Crewther 159

Global-local visual processing

Participants completed two separate custom designed local/global Navon figure tasks
(Navon, 1977), that were generated using VPixx software (www.VPixx.com). Tasks
were displayed on an iMac computer with participants seated approximately 57 cm
from the screen.
Stimuli consisted of a group of small arrows forming an outline of a larger
arrow rather than the more classical letters to compose the local/global elements.
Participants were asked to attend to either the local (small arrows) or global (large
arrow) level of the stimulus in separate tasks and to respond with a right or left
keyboard press to indicate the direction of the target stimuli. The direction of the
arrows at the local and global levels could be either congruent (e.g., both pointing
leftwards, see Figure 1A) or incongruent (e.g., local arrows pointing leftwards, with
the global arrow pointing rightwards, see Figure 1B). Both reaction time and accuracy
of responses to the directionality of the stimuli were recorded. The global shape of
the Navon stimulus was 9° of visual angle in length, and approximately 7° at the
widest part of the arrow head, and 3° wide along the arrow tail. The local arrow
elements were approximately 0.9° by 0.7° of visual angle. Each trial started with a
fixation cross in the middle of a blank white screen to orient the participant, with a
500 ms delay. The fixation cross was then removed followed by a random delay
between 200-600 ms, before the Navon stimulus was presented on screen for 1000
ms duration. In order to ensure participants did not focus on one particular area of the
screen to assist in their decision-making (e.g., focus on one small arrow, or the area
where the tip of the big arrow forms); the stimuli were presented randomly within
±2° in the y-axis around the center of the screen. Participants were required to
respond within the 1000ms presentation of the Navon stimuli using a keyboard press
before the next trial commenced. There were separate local-focused and global-
focused tasks, with 20 trials per condition (congruent local left, congruent local right,
incongruent global left, congruent global right), resulting in 80 total trials in each
task. Task order was counterbalanced between participants.

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

23 (2019) 155-170
160 A. L. Shilton, R. Laycock, S. G. Crewther

Figure 1. Sequence for two trials on the global-local visual processing task. Following a
fixation cross, hierarchical stimuli were presented, either congruent or incongruent in arrow
direction between global and local levels. Participants reported the direction of either the
global or local arrows in separate tasks. In this example, for the global task, a correct response
would be ‘left’ followed by ‘left’ again. For the local task, the correct response would be ‘left’
followed by ‘right’.
Stress induction procedure
The Maastricht Acute Stress Test (MAST) was used to induce acute stress (Smeets
et al., 2012). The procedure was conducted over a 15-minute period, beginning with
a 5-minute preparation phase in which the participant read instructions in a
PowerPoint presentation. In the following 10-minute acute stress phase, physical
stress was combined with uncontrollability (i.e. can’t control task) and
unpredictability (i.e. do not know duration of task), as participants are prompted by
the computer to engage in alternating trials of submerging their hand in ice-cold water
(2º C), and an arithmetic task (counting aloud backwards in steps of 17 beginning
with 2043). Participants received negative feedback by the experimenter concerning
speed (longer than 5 seconds) or accuracy, at which point they would have to start
back at 2043. There were 5 hand immersion trials (60 or 90 seconds), alternated with
four arithmetic trials (45, 60, or 90 seconds); however, participants were unaware of
the exact number or duration of the trials, thus creating a sense of unpredictability,
and were also told they were being video recorded for analysis of their facial
expressions (and later debriefed that this did not actually occur).

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

23 (2019) 155-170
 A. L. Shilton, R. Laycock, S. G. Crewther 161

Procedures
Participants first completed an online questionnaire including basic demographics
and the exclusion criteria. After screening for eligibility, participants were
subsequently invited to complete individual testing at La Trobe University. Written
consent was obtained prior to completing the STAI-Y and baseline measures on a
series of computer-based visual perception tasks across approximately 40 minutes,
not all of which are associated with this study. The order of all visual tasks was
counterbalanced between participants. Participants then completed the 15-minute
MAST protocol (preparation phase, hand immersion and mental arithmetic trials),
which was immediately followed by completing the STAI-Y (state anxiety form) and
then the same set of computer-based visual tasks. The same investigator collected all
data ensuring consistency in the administration of these procedures.
Data analysis
Of the total 60 participants tested, three (females) did not finish the whole
experimental procedure and so did not provide complete data, leaving a final sample
of 57. Data was checked for non-normality using Q-Q plots and Shapiro-Wilks tests
of normality. The Expectation-Minimisation method was used to manage missing
data (Schafer & Olsen, 1998).
Analyses were initially conducted on the full healthy sample using one-way
repeated measures ANOVA’s to compare the Navon congruency effect (incongruent
condition RT minus congruent condition RT) at baseline and post-stress test, for the
global and local tasks independently. For subsequent analyses, participants were
divided into three even groups (i.e., a tertile split), firstly based on trait anxiety scores
by ranking all participants on this measure. The top and bottom third of scorers were
used to create high and low Trait Anxiety Groups. Subsequently in a separate analysis
a tertile split based on state anxiety-reactivity scores was utilized. State anxiety
reactivity scores were based on the change in state anxiety levels before and after the
stress test procedure (i.e. post-stress score minus baseline score). Trait Anxiety group,
and State Anxiety-Reactivity group characteristics can be seen in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1.
Age, gender, and average trait Anxiety scores for the High- and Low-Trait Anxiety groups.
Group N Age Gender (m:f) Trait Anxiety
Low-Trait Anx 19 24.3 (4.6) 4:15 29.42 (3.08)
High-Trait Anx 19 23.4 (5.4) 5:14 49.21 (6.10)
Note. Mean score with the standard deviation in parentheses.

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

23 (2019) 155-170
162 A. L. Shilton, R. Laycock, S. G. Crewther

Table 2.
Age, gender, and average state anxiety reactivity scores for the High- and Low-State Anxiety
Reactivity groups.
State Anxiety
Group N Age Gender (m:f)
Reactivity
Low-State Anx Reactivity 19 26.1 (5.6) 6:13 4.79 (6.60)
High-State Anx Reactivity 19 22.6 (4.7) 3:16 28.95 (6.40)
Note. Mean score with the standard deviation in parentheses.

Performance on the local and global Navon tasks was defined by the effect of global
or local interference on reaction time (RT), respectively. Only data from correct trials
was included. Reaction time values less than 200 ms or greater than 1000 ms were
treated as outliers and excluded. Global/local interference scores were calculated by
subtracting the mean RT for congruent trials from incongruent trials in the respective
global and local tasks before being submitted to the analysis. Specifically, on the
global task, the difference in RT between congruent and incongruent conditions
results in a local interference score, whilst on the local task, the difference in RT
between congruent and incongruent conditions results in a global interference score.
Mixed design ANOVA’s were then conducted to compare baseline and post-stress
measures for each of the global and local tasks separately. Thus, for each of the
analyses relating to trait anxiety and state anxiety reactivity, two mixed design
ANOVA’s (one for each of the global and local tasks) were conducted with group
(high vs. low) as the between group factor, and time (baseline vs. post-stress) as the
within-subject factor. For all analyses, simple main effects were conducted to analyze
significant interaction effects, with alpha set at .05.

RESULTS

Acute stress on global-local processing in a healthy sample

Firstly, examining the whole sample, an ANOVA for the global task showed there
was no significant difference in the magnitude of the interference effect (interference
of local level stimuli on global processing) at baseline compared to post-stress test,
though a moderate effect suggested less local interference following the stressor
[F(1, 56) = 3.20; p = .079, 𝜂𝑝2 = .054]. The ANOVA for the local task also showed
there was no significant difference for the interaction effect (interference of global
level stimuli) at baseline compared to post-stress test [F(1, 56) = 0.52; p = .475,
𝜂𝑝2 = .009]. The average RT interference effect for all trials (collapsed across testing
conditions) in the global task was 31 ms, while the average RT interference effect for
the local trials was 78 ms, suggesting participants were faster at the global task
compared to the local task overall.

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

23 (2019) 155-170
 A. L. Shilton, R. Laycock, S. G. Crewther 163

Influence of anxiety and acute stress on global-local processing

Trait anxiety
This analysis was conducted to examine whether those participants with high or low
trait anxiety showed differential changes to global-local processing following acute
stress. A mixed design ANOVA for local interference on the global task in those with
high or low trait anxiety showed there was no main effect of Time [F(1, 36) = 1.47;
p = .233, 𝜂𝑝2 = .039], but there was a significant main effect of Group [F(1, 36) = 4.68;
p = .037, 𝜂𝑝2 = .115] (see Figure 2A). There was also no significant interaction effect
[F(1, 36) = 2.23; p = .144, 𝜂𝑝2 = .058]. The group difference is indicative of greater
local interference for the high trait anxiety group compared to the low trait anxiety
group. The ANOVA examining global interference on the local task showed no main
effect of Time [F(1, 36) = 0.10; p = .749, 𝜂𝑝2 = .003], nor of Group [F(1, 36) = 0.46;
p = .504, 𝜂𝑝2 = .012], and also no interaction effect [F(1, 36) = 0.33; p = .572,
𝜂𝑝2 = .009] (see Figure 2B).

Figure 2. Navon task interference scores (calculated as the difference in RT between

congruent and incongruent conditions) for Low and High trait Anxiety groups, in the A) global
task (local interference), and B) local task (global interference). A larger interference effect
indicates greater cost to reaction time resulting from the incongruent and irrelevant level of
attention. Error bars represent ± standard error of the mean.

Given the uneven ratio between male and female participants, these analyses
were run again this time using gender as a covariate. No change in the main or
interaction effects described above were found. The effect of gender and the
interaction of gender with other factors were not significant.
State anxiety reactivity
This next analysis was conducted to compare participants who reported large or small
changes in their state anxiety as a result of the stress induction, and the extent to
which these different groups showed differential changes in global-local processing

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

23 (2019) 155-170
164 A. L. Shilton, R. Laycock, S. G. Crewther

following acute stress. The mixed design ANOVA for local interference on the global
task to compare those with high or low changes in state anxiety following the stress
test, showed no main effect of Time [F(1, 36) = 0.48; p = .495, 𝜂𝑝2 = .013] or Group
[F(1, 36) = 0.37; p = .547, 𝜂𝑝2 = .010], and no interaction effect [F(1, 36) = 0.340;
p = .532, 𝜂𝑝2 = .011] (see Figure 3A). The ANOVA for global interference on the
local task showed no main effect of Time [F(1, 36) = 0.02; p = .878, 𝜂𝑝2 = .001], or
Group [F(1, 36) = 1.41; p = .243, 𝜂𝑝2 = .038], but did show a significant interaction
effect [F(1, 36) = 10.32; p = .003, 𝜂𝑝2 = .223] (see Figure 3B). Simple main effects
revealed that participants with Low state anxiety reactivity (anx-Reactivity) showed
more global interference after the stress test compared to baseline (p = .037), while
participants with High anx-Reactivity showed reduced global interference following
the stressor compared with baseline (p = .023). At baseline, individuals with High
anx-Reactivity showed greater global interference than those with Low
anx-Reactivity (p = .031). There was no difference in global interference between
groups when tested after the stressor (p = .994). Furthermore, this interaction between
Time and state anxiety reactivity Group was still significant even if trait anxiety was
included in the analysis as a covariate (p = .004).

Figure 3. Navon task interference scores (calculated as the difference in RT between

congruent and incongruent conditions) for Low and High State Anxiety Reactivity groups, in
the A) global task (local interference), and B) local task (global interference). A larger
interference effect indicates greater cost to reaction time resulting from the incongruent and
irrelevant level of attention. Error bars represent ± standard error of the mean.
As for the Trait Anxiety analysis, the State Anxiety Reactivity analysis was
re-run due to the uneven ratio between male and female participants. No change in
the main or interaction effects described above were found, importantly with the
Time by Group interaction remaining significant (p = .005). Whilst the effect of
gender did not interact with other factors, the effect of gender was significant
(p = .026).

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

23 (2019) 155-170
 A. L. Shilton, R. Laycock, S. G. Crewther 165

DISCUSSIONS
The current study aimed to explore the impact on visual perception of individual
differences in trait anxiety, and also of individual differences in the subjective change
in state anxiety following acute stress. Participants completed two visual processing
tasks requiring attention to global or local levels of hierarchical figures, respectively.
Each task was completed before and after an acute stress intervention. Prior to the
stress test, and in line with Navon’s (1977) original concept, all participants
demonstrated clear evidence of global precedence, with a much stronger global
interference than local interference evident.

Trait anxiety and global-local processing

Our hypothesis that participants with high trait anxiety would demonstrate a stronger
preference towards local processing compared to participants with low trait anxiety,
was supported. Although this suggests that high trait anxiety is associated with a
relative bias towards local visual processing, both high and low trait anxiety groups
still maintained an overall global precedence, with stronger global than local
interference effects established, consistent with Navon’s (1977) original findings. On
the other hand, no difference between trait anxiety groups for performance on the
local task were established at baseline. Together, these findings indicate that rather
than high anxiety leading to a local processing advantage, there appears to be a
reduced preference for global processing. This is in line with Tyler and Tucker’s
(1982) early research that found high trait anxiety was associated with less preference
for global processing and instead a greater analytical or local approach. Moreover,
Tyler and Tucker used a divided attention task that prompted participants to ‘choose’
either global or local processing based on their preference when viewing a briefly
presented stimulus. This design is different in a number of respects to the current
study in which a directed selective attention task was utilized by specifically
instructing participants to process either the global or local information separately.
Thus, our results imply that even when consciously attending to global information,
participants with high trait anxiety in the current study demonstrated more
interference from the local detail.
Interestingly, acute stress did not moderate these effects of trait anxiety on
visual perception. However, there was a trend evident in Figure 2A, unexpectedly
suggesting individuals with high trait anxiety used more global processing (i.e. less
local interference) after a stress test compared to before the stressor. In contrast, Tyler
and Tucker (1982) showed acute stress led to more local processing on the bistable
figures task (an image that is gradually changed to look like a different image) in
individuals with high trait anxiety. Although possible, it is unlikely that the
differences between Tyler and Tuckers’ results and those of the current study are due
to different stress test paradigms and protocols. The stress procedure (MAST) used
in the current study would be expected to elicit stronger all round physiological and

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

23 (2019) 155-170
166 A. L. Shilton, R. Laycock, S. G. Crewther

psychological stress responses than Tyler and Tucker’s manipulation that simply
involved telling people they would be stressed and anxious during the tasks, even
though both studies showed increased state anxiety after the stress manipulation.
Nevertheless, it remains possible that the MAST produced a degree of stress that was
insufficient to produce the desired shift towards a great local bias. Rather, if only a
moderate degree of stress was induced, improved performance (as indicated by a
greater global bias) may be expected, and only with a stronger induction of stress
would impairment be induced (perceptual local bias), as would be predicted by the
Yerkes-Dodson inverted U curve (Salehi, Cordero, & Sandi, 2010).

State anxiety reactivity and global-local processing

When high and low state anxiety reactivity (Anx-Reactivity) groups were compared
with respect to their global-local visual processing in response to an acute stressor,
group differences were observed only for the local task. At baseline, the High Anx-
Reactivity group showed more global interference compared to the Low Anx-
Reactivity group. Thus, this could be interpreted as suggesting that those with high
anxiety reactivity to stress have a stronger preference for global processing. This
result appears inconsistent with the trait anxiety data, in which a preference for local
processing was established on the global task by those with high trait anxiety. After
the stress test however, the same level of global interference was seen between the
High and Low anx-Reactivity groups. Interestingly, this meant that for the Low anx-
Reactivity group, acute stress induced more global interference compared to baseline,
while the inverse relationship was seen for the High anx-Reactivity group, where
acute stress induced less global interference (indicating stronger preference for local
processing) compared to baseline. Acute stress, as induced by MAST procedure used
here (Smeets et al., 2012) seemingly has opposing effects depending on the extent to
which an individual subjectively reacts to stress. It is important to note that this effect
of state anxiety reactivity on local processing was still established when individual
differences in trait anxiety were controlled for, suggesting that the reaction to a
stressor may be independent of any underlying trait anxiety.
State anxiety reactivity and stress did not interact to affect performance on
the global processing task, which may indicate that the global precedence is strong
enough to overpower such effects produced by the stress test procedure utilized here.
This effect may be magnified in that participants were explicitly asked to focus on
the global level, rather than to flexibly attend both local and global levels.
One limitation of the current study requiring acknowledgement was the
unequal gender ratio, making gender comparisons of global-local processing not
possible in the current study. The significantly greater number of females compared
to males also restricts generalizability of the conclusions to a healthy younger female
population. Inclusion of gender as a covariate in the existing analyses did not change
the results. A second limitation relates to the assessment of participant responses to
stress. No physiological measure, such as cortisol, was taken to confirm the

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

23 (2019) 155-170
 A. L. Shilton, R. Laycock, S. G. Crewther 167

effectiveness of the stress test, and instead the subjective self-report of participants
was relied upon. Despite this, the MAST procedure used here has been shown to
produce reliable increases in subjective stress as well as blood pressure and cortisol
(Smeets et al., 2012).
Future research may benefit from the inclusion of physiological
measurements of cortisol as well as neuroimaging techniques to examine the neural
correlates associated with changes in local-global processing, given that these aspects
of visual processing are associated with different neural mechanisms (Han et al.,
2002; Lux et al., 2004). Furthermore, given evidence for changes in retinal
accommodation (Lawson, Crewther, Junghans, Crewther, & Kiely, 2005) and pupil
dilation (Sabatino DiCriscio, Hu, & Troiani, 2018) during local-global processing of
Navon stimuli, future work should examine the effect of individual differences in
anxiety and stress on such measures.

Conclusions
Our results provide further evidence for global precedence in visual processing in
healthy adult populations. At baseline, individuals with higher trait anxiety were
linked to a relative bias towards local processing compared to individuals with low
trait anxiety. On the other hand, surprisingly, high state anxiety reactivity was linked
to more global processing compared to individuals with low state anxiety reactivity
at baseline. Overall, acute psychophysical stress as induced by the MAST, did not
have a significant effect on global-local processing when analyzing the whole sample
(although a moderate effect indicated less local interference after the MAST), or
when comparing high and low trait anxiety groups. Yet, acute stress was associated
with differential influences depending on the individuals’ degree of state anxiety
reactivity (i.e., change from pre- to post- state anxiety scores). For those with low
state anxiety reactivity, the acute stress generally led to more global interference on
local processing, whereas for participants with high state anxiety, the acute stress led
to less global interference and hence stronger local processing.
These results could have implications for understanding how individuals
with clinical anxiety process visual information and perhaps how they learn. Indeed,
these findings should be considered alongside future investigations of ASD where
anxiety is commonly comorbid (Mazurek et al., 2013). Whilst the effects of acute
stress on emotion and cognition are well known (Porcelli & Delgado, 2009; Raio,
Orederu, Palazzolo, Shurick, & Phelps, 2013; Vedhara, Hyde, Gilchrist, Tytherleigh,
& Plummer, 2000), the current findings extend these findings pointing to the
influence of acute stress on perceptual processes such as global/local visual
processing.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Brad Wright for providing the MAST equipment for this experiment.

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

23 (2019) 155-170
168 A. L. Shilton, R. Laycock, S. G. Crewther

REFERENCES
Bar, M., Kassam, K. S., Ghuman, A. S., Boshyan, J., Schmid, A. M., Dale, A. M., . . . Halgren,
E. (2006). Top-down facilitation of visual recognition. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(2), 449-454.
doi:10.1073/pnas.0507062103
Barrett, L. F., & Bar, M. (2009). See it with feeling: affective predictions during object
perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B,
Biological Sciences, 364(1521), 1325-1334. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0312
Basso, M. R., Schefft, B. K., Ris, M. D., & Dember, W. N. (1996). Mood and global-local
visual processing. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 2(3),
249-255. doi:10.1017/S1355617700001193
Baumann, N., & Kuhl, J. (2005). Positive affect and flexibility: Overcoming the precedence
of global over local processing of visual information. Motivation and Emotion, 29(2),
123-134. doi:10.1007/s11031-005-7957-1
Becker, K. R., Plessow, F., Coniglio, K. A., Tabri, N., Franko, D. L., Zayas, L. V., . . . Eddy,
K. T. (2017). Global/local processing style: Explaining the relationship between trait
anxiety and binge eating. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 50(11), 1264-
1272. doi:10.1002/eat.22772
Bocanegra, B. R., & Zeelenberg, R. (2011). Emotion-induced trade-offs in spatiotemporal
vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(2), 272-282.
doi:10.1037/a0023188
Bogdashina, O. (2016). Sensory perceptual issues in autism and asperger syndrome: Different
sensory experiences-different perceptual worlds. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Booth, R. D., & Happe, F. G. (2016). Evidence of reduced global processing in autism
spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 48, 1397-1408
doi:10.1007/s10803-016-2724-6
Dakin, S., & Frith, U. (2005). Vagaries of visual perception in autism. Neuron, 48(3), 497-
507. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2005.10.018
de Fockert, J. W., & Cooper, A. (2014). Higher levels of depression are associated with
reduced global bias in visual processing. Cognition and Emotion, 28(3), 541-549.
doi:10.1080/02699931.2013.839939
Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention
and thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19(3), 313-332.
doi:10.1080/02699930441000238
Gasper, K., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Attending to the big picture: mood and global versus local
processing of visual information. Psychological Science, 13(1), 34-40.
doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00406
Han, S., Weaver, J. A., Murray, S. O., Kang, X., Yund, E. W., & Woods, D. L. (2002).
Hemispheric asymmetry in global/local processing: effects of stimulus position and
spatial frequency. Neuroimage, 17(3), 1290-1299. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2002.1255
Happe, F., & Frith, U. (1996). The neuropsychology of autism. Brain, 119 ( Pt 4), 1377-1400.
doi:10.1093/brain/119.4.1377
Happe, F., & Frith, U. (2006). The weak coherence account: detail-focused cognitive style in
autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36(1),
5-25. doi:10.1007/s10803-005-0039-0

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

23 (2019) 155-170
 A. L. Shilton, R. Laycock, S. G. Crewther 169

Huntsinger, J. R., Clore, G. L., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2010). Mood and global-local focus: priming
a local focus reverses the link between mood and global-local processing. Emotion,
10(5), 722-726. doi:10.1037/a0019356
Kennelly, K. J., & Wilcox, G. (1985). Laterality of cerebral function: relations with anxiety,
repression, and perception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 60(3), 791-795.
doi:10.2466/pms.1985.60.3.791
Lawson, M. L., Crewther, S. G., Junghans, B. M., Crewther, D. P., & Kiely, P. M. (2005).
Changes in ocular accommodation when shifting between global and local attention.
Clinical and Experimental Optometry, 88(1), 28-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1444-
0938.2005.tb06660.x
Laycock, R., Crewther, S. G., & Crewther, D. P. (2007). A role for the 'magnocellular
advantage' in visual impairments in neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders.
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 31(3), 363-376. doi:
10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.10.003
Lupien, S. J., McEwen, B. S., Gunnar, M. R., & Heim, C. (2009). Effects of stress throughout
the lifespan on the brain, behaviour and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,
10(6), 434-445. doi:10.1038/nrn2639
Lux, S., Marshall, J. C., Ritzl, A., Weiss, P. H., Pietrzyk, U., Shah, N. J., . . . Fink, G. R.
(2004). A functional magnetic resonance imaging study of local/global processing
with stimulus presentation in the peripheral visual hemifields. Neuroscience, 124(1),
113-120. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2003.10.044
Mazurek, M. O., Vasa, R. A., Kalb, L. G., Kanne, S. M., Rosenberg, D., Keefer, A., . . .,
Lowery, L. A. (2013). Anxiety, sensory over-responsivity, and gastrointestinal
problems in children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 41(1), 165-176. doi:10.1007/s10802-012-9668-x
McDowell, I. (2006). Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires: Oxford
University Press.
Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (2005). Attentional bias in generalized anxiety disorder versus
depressive disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29(1), 29-45. doi:
10.1007/s10608-005-1646-y
Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception.
Cognitive Psychology, 9(3), 353-383.
Plaisted, K., Swettenham, J., & Rees, L. (1999). Children with autism show local precedence
in a divided attention task and global precedence in a selective attention task. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40(5), 733-742. doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00489
Porcelli, A. J., & Delgado, M. R. (2009). Acute stress modulates risk taking in financial
decision making. Psychological Science, 20(3), 278-283. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2009.02288.x
Raio, C. M., Orederu, T. A., Palazzolo, L., Shurick, A. A., & Phelps, E. A. (2013). Cognitive
emotion regulation fails the stress test. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 110(37), 15139-15144. doi: 10.1073/pnas.130570611
Sabatino DiCriscio, A., Hu, Y., & Troiani, V. (2018). Task-induced pupil response and visual
perception in adults. PLoS One, 13(12), e0209556.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0209556
Salehi, B., Cordero, M. I., & Sandi, C. (2010). Learning under stress: the inverted-U-shape
function revisited. Learning and Memory, 17(10), 522-530. doi:10.1101/lm.1914110

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

23 (2019) 155-170
170 A. L. Shilton, R. Laycock, S. G. Crewther

Schafer, J. L., & Olsen, M. K. (1998). Multiple imputation for multivariate missing-data
problems: A data analyst's perspective. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33(4),
545-571. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3304_5
Smeets, T., Cornelisse, S., Quaedflieg, C. W., Meyer, T., Jelicic, M., & Merckelbach, H. (2012).
Introducing the Maastricht Acute Stress Test (MAST): a quick and non-invasive
approach to elicit robust autonomic and glucocorticoid stress responses.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37(12), 1998-2008. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2012.04.012
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R. E., & Vagg, P. R. (1983). Manual for the
State-trait anxiety inventory (STAI) (Vol. 1970). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Stuchlíková, I., Kindlman, P., & Man, F. (1996). Anxiety in visual perception. Anxiety, Stress,
and Coping, 9(1), 87-103. doi:10.1080/10615809608249394
Tyler, S. K., & Tucker, D. M. (1982). Anxiety and perceptual structure: individual differences
in neuropsychological function. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 91(3), 210-220.
doi:10.1037/0021-843X.91.3.210
Vasterling, J. J., Duke, L. M., Tomlin, H., Lowery, N., & Kaplan, E. (2004). Global-local
visual processing in posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of the International
Neuropsychological Society, 10(5), 709-718. doi:10.1017/s1355617704105031
Vedhara, K., Hyde, J., Gilchrist, I., Tytherleigh, M., & Plummer, S. (2000). Acute stress,
memory, attention and cortisol. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 25(6), 535-549.
doi:10.1016/S0306-4530(00)00008-1
Wu, C. T., Crouzet, S. M., Thorpe, S. J., & Fabre-Thorpe, M. (2015). At 120 msec you can
spot the animal but you don't yet know it's a dog. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
27(1), 141-149. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00701

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

23 (2019) 155-170
Copyright of Cognition, Brain, Behavior is the property of Editura ASCR and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.