Attention paradigms.

<p><i>(left)</i> Procedure of the emotional dot-probe task. The task of the subject was to identify the location of the dot-probe. <i>(right)</i> Procedure of the emotional Stroop task. The task of the subject was to identify the emotion of the respective face.</p

Descriptive statistics of attentional bias scores and RTs for the eDOT (in ms) with SD in brackets.

<p>Descriptive statistics of attentional bias scores and RTs for the eDOT (in ms) with SD in brackets.</p

AND- and sex-specific effects for angry faces.

<p>(left) Error rates (possible range 0–1) for angry faces are by trend increased for men compared to women under AND and are by trend reduced within women under AND. (right) Bias indices for angry faces depicting reduced interference under AND exposure in men compared to women and reduced interference within men under AND. Significant results are indicated (~ p < .10; * p < .05) and are based on log-transformed values for reaction times (bias index) and untransformed values for error rates. Errors bars indicate two standard errors of the mean (SEM).</p

Attention paradigms.

<p><i>(left)</i> Procedure of the emotional dot-probe task. The task of the subject was to identify the location of the dot-probe. <i>(right)</i> Procedure of the emotional Stroop task. The task of the subject was to identify the emotion of the respective face.</p

Attentional bias scores, RTs (in ms) and error rates (in %) with SD in brackets for the eSTROOP.

<p>Attentional bias scores, RTs (in ms) and error rates (in %) with SD in brackets for the eSTROOP.</p

Experimental procedure.

<p>After odor application, a mood survey was completed for seven minutes, directly followed by the attentional paradigms lasting for 28 minutes. Another mood survey and olfactory / neuropsychological tests were performed at the end of both experimental days.</p

Characteristics of participants.

<p>Characteristics of participants.</p