英语翻译More generally we would like to point out that in the em

英语翻译
More generally we would like to point out that in the emotion
literature it is commonly agreed upon that differences in mood do
not lead to quantitative differences in cognitive processing or to
a general attenuation of cognitive processes.Conversely,there is
firm evidence that differences in mood lead to qualitative different
strategies and that mood-dependent processing styles exist;
for example,happy people are inclined to global,category level
of processing information while sad people are inclined to local,
item specific processing (e.g.,Schwarz,2002).Hence,sad moods
do not lead to less cognitive processing (e.g.,decrease in motivation)
and happy moods do not lead to more cognitive processing
(e.g.,increase in motivation).
In the present article we explored the influence of a participant’s
emotional state,in particular of a positive vs.negative mood,
on the comprehension of neutral,nonaffective language (i.e.,the
processing of words and sentences),on P600,a late centroparietally
distributed positivity.Studies on the electrophysiological
responses to emotionally evocative language (affectively positive
or negative words) also reported a late positivity with a centroparietal
maximum in response to words with affective meanings (see
for example,Kissler,Assadollahi,& Herbert,2006; Williamsen,
Harpur,& Hare,1991,and see Fisschler & Bradley,2006,for a
review).This late positivity has been reported as an index of emotional
processing.It has been found to be selectively enhanced only
during the processing of pleasant words compared to neutral and
unpleasant words (Herbert,Kissler,Junghofer,Peyk,& Rockstroh,
2006; Schapin,Gusev,& Kuhl,2000).In contrast with these results,
the late positivity has also been reported to be larger for negatively
valenced words than for positively valenced words (e.g.,
Holt,Lynn,& Kuperberg,2009; Kanske & Kotz,2007).The latter
finding is in line with the ‘negativity bias’ hypothesis.Following
this hypothesis,negatively valenced stimuli trigger more cognitive
processing than positively valenced information (Ito,Larsen,
Smith,& Cacioppo,1998).What the present ERP results unveil
is that the participants’ emotional state,in particular being in a
happy or in a sad mood,affects the processing of neutral words
and sentences,as reflected by a late positivity referred to here as a
P600.

文学人们普遍商定的情绪差异做.
不会导致在认知加工或到定量的差异.
的认知过程的一般衰减.相反,有.
确凿证据,在情绪导致质的差异不同.
战略和情绪的处理方式存在依赖..
例如,幸福的人都倾向于全球,类别层次.
处理信息,而悲伤的人都倾向于本地..
项目的具体处理（例如,施瓦茨,2002）.因此,悲伤的情绪.
不会导致更少的认知处理（例如,在动机减少）..
和快乐的情绪不会导致更多的认知加工.
（例如,在动力增加）.
在本文章中,我们探讨了其中的一名参与者的影响力.
情绪状态,在主场迎战正负面情绪尤其如此..
对中性,nonaffective语言理解（即..
的单词和句子的处理）,在P600,一个已故centroparietally.
分布式的积极性.电生理研究.
唤起情感反应,语言（对演讲阳性..
或否定词）也报告了一个centroparietal晚的积极性.
最大响应与情感含义的话考察（见.
例如,Kissler,Assadollahi,＆赫伯特,2006; Williamsen,.
哈珀,与野兔,1991.,并参阅答.
审查Fisschler和布拉德利,2006年）.这么晚的积极性已被报告为情绪指数.
处理.它被认为是唯一的选择性增强.
期间愉快的话比较中立和处理.
不愉快的话（赫伯特,Kissler,Junghofer,Peyk,＆Rockstroh,.
2006年.Schapin,古谢夫,＆库尔,2000）.在这些结果的对比..
已故阳性也被报告为负更大.
较积极的效价词（例如,效价的话..
霍尔特琳,＆Kuperberg,2009; Kanske与科茨,2007）.后者.
发现是在与'消极偏见的假设线.以下.
这一假说,负效价刺激引发更多的认知.
比正面效价信息处理（伊藤,拉森..
史密斯＆卡西奥普,1998）.目前的ERP结果什么揭幕.
的是,参加者的情绪状态,尤其是在A **%%**.快乐或悲伤的情绪,影响了中性词处理.
和句子,由已故的积极反映这里称为答.
P600.