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 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.

Abstract licence: CC BY

1. 13.

   Effects of threat cues on attentional shifting, disengagement and response slowing in anxious individuals · 2008

2. 38.

   Behavioral and ERP measures of attentional bias to threat in the dot-probe task: poor reliability and lack of correlation with anxiety · 2014

3. 69.

   Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results · 2014

4. 80.

   Bayesian inference for psychology. Part II: Example applications with JASP · 2017

5. 81.

   Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications · 2017

6. 98.

   The JASP guidelines for conducting and reporting a Bayesian analysis · 2020

97 more references, whose wording the paper’s licence keeps private.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.