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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ward, Richard T., Lotfi, Salahadin, Stout, Daniel M., Mattson, Sofia, Lee, Han-Joo, Larson, Christine L.
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