Sensory Processing Sensitivity and cognitive performance: A systematic review and theoretical framework through the lens of hot and cold cognition

Le résumé fourni par la source

Sensory Processing Sensitivity (SPS) reflects stable individual differences in sensitivity and responsivity to social, emotional, and physical environments. It is associated with negative and positive outcomes, such as mental health issues and responsivity to interventions respectively. Core tenets of the trait are differences in cognitive processing, particularly environmental awareness, allocation of attention and depth of processing; however, whether and how SPS actually modulates cognitive processing remains poorly understood. This understanding is necessary to better define the trait and its interplay with environmental features. This systematic review evaluated evidence for the influence of SPS on cognitive processing. Comprehensive searches of PubMed, EBSCO, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and grey literature yielded 51 articles comprising 62 studies. Narrative synthesis revealed evidence of modulation in perception, attention and inhibition, specifically when emotions are involved (stimuli or context). Social cognition was a consistent association with SPS. Situating these findings within the theoretical framework of hot and cold cognition, we propose that SPS-related cognitive differences are most evident in tasks requiring hot (emotion-dependent) cognition (e.g. social cognition and tasks with emotional/motivational elements) rather than cold (emotion-independent) cognition (e.g. attention, problem solving) or in situations where the context has emotional or social relevance. This pattern is consistent with existing neuroimaging evidence. We propose testable hypotheses on the interplay between the trait, contextual variables, and task characteristics in determining cognitive performance, and the potential mechanisms behind it, particularly predictive coding, possibly modulated by arousal.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.