Cargando…
Working Memory Performance for Differentially Conditioned Stimuli
Previous work suggests that threat-related stimuli are stored to a greater degree in working memory compared to neutral stimuli. However, most of this research has focused on stimuli with physically salient threat attributes (e.g., angry faces), failing to account for how a “neutral” stimulus that h...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8821888/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35145464 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.811233 |
_version_ | 1784646493450272768 |
---|---|
author | Ward, Richard T. Lotfi, Salahadin Stout, Daniel M. Mattson, Sofia Lee, Han-Joo Larson, Christine L. |
author_facet | Ward, Richard T. Lotfi, Salahadin Stout, Daniel M. Mattson, Sofia Lee, Han-Joo Larson, Christine L. |
author_sort | Ward, Richard T. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Previous work suggests that threat-related stimuli are stored to a greater degree in working memory compared to neutral stimuli. However, most of this research has focused on stimuli with physically salient threat attributes (e.g., angry faces), failing to account for how a “neutral” stimulus that has acquired threat-related associations through differential aversive conditioning influences working memory. The current study examined how differentially conditioned safe (i.e., CS–) and threat (i.e., CS+) stimuli are stored in working memory relative to a novel, non-associated (i.e., N) stimuli. Participants (n = 69) completed a differential fear conditioning task followed by a change detection task consisting of three conditions (CS+, CS–, N) across two loads (small, large). Results revealed individuals successfully learned to distinguishing CS+ from CS– conditions during the differential aversive conditioning task. Our working memory outcomes indicated successful load manipulation effects, but no statistically significant differences in accuracy, response time (RT), or Pashler’s K measures of working memory capacity between CS+, CS–, or N conditions. However, we observed significantly reduced RT difference scores for the CS+ compared to CS– condition, indicating greater RT differences between the CS+ and N condition vs. the CS– and N condition. These findings suggest that differentially conditioned stimuli have little impact on behavioral outcomes of working memory compared to novel stimuli that had not been associated with previous safe of aversive outcomes, at least in healthy populations. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8821888 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88218882022-02-09 Working Memory Performance for Differentially Conditioned Stimuli Ward, Richard T. Lotfi, Salahadin Stout, Daniel M. Mattson, Sofia Lee, Han-Joo Larson, Christine L. Front Psychol Psychology Previous work suggests that threat-related stimuli are stored to a greater degree in working memory compared to neutral stimuli. However, most of this research has focused on stimuli with physically salient threat attributes (e.g., angry faces), failing to account for how a “neutral” stimulus that has acquired threat-related associations through differential aversive conditioning influences working memory. The current study examined how differentially conditioned safe (i.e., CS–) and threat (i.e., CS+) stimuli are stored in working memory relative to a novel, non-associated (i.e., N) stimuli. Participants (n = 69) completed a differential fear conditioning task followed by a change detection task consisting of three conditions (CS+, CS–, N) across two loads (small, large). Results revealed individuals successfully learned to distinguishing CS+ from CS– conditions during the differential aversive conditioning task. Our working memory outcomes indicated successful load manipulation effects, but no statistically significant differences in accuracy, response time (RT), or Pashler’s K measures of working memory capacity between CS+, CS–, or N conditions. However, we observed significantly reduced RT difference scores for the CS+ compared to CS– condition, indicating greater RT differences between the CS+ and N condition vs. the CS– and N condition. These findings suggest that differentially conditioned stimuli have little impact on behavioral outcomes of working memory compared to novel stimuli that had not been associated with previous safe of aversive outcomes, at least in healthy populations. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-01-25 /pmc/articles/PMC8821888/ /pubmed/35145464 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.811233 Text en Copyright © 2022 Ward, Lotfi, Stout, Mattson, Lee and Larson. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Psychology Ward, Richard T. Lotfi, Salahadin Stout, Daniel M. Mattson, Sofia Lee, Han-Joo Larson, Christine L. Working Memory Performance for Differentially Conditioned Stimuli |
title | Working Memory Performance for Differentially Conditioned Stimuli |
title_full | Working Memory Performance for Differentially Conditioned Stimuli |
title_fullStr | Working Memory Performance for Differentially Conditioned Stimuli |
title_full_unstemmed | Working Memory Performance for Differentially Conditioned Stimuli |
title_short | Working Memory Performance for Differentially Conditioned Stimuli |
title_sort | working memory performance for differentially conditioned stimuli |
topic | Psychology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8821888/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35145464 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.811233 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wardrichardt workingmemoryperformancefordifferentiallyconditionedstimuli AT lotfisalahadin workingmemoryperformancefordifferentiallyconditionedstimuli AT stoutdanielm workingmemoryperformancefordifferentiallyconditionedstimuli AT mattsonsofia workingmemoryperformancefordifferentiallyconditionedstimuli AT leehanjoo workingmemoryperformancefordifferentiallyconditionedstimuli AT larsonchristinel workingmemoryperformancefordifferentiallyconditionedstimuli |