4.6 Article

Better cognitive efficiency is associated with increased experimental anxiety

期刊

PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY
卷 57, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/psyp.13559

关键词

anxiety; cognitive control; startle blink; working memory

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [ZIAMH002798] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is increased interest in the development of cognitive training targeting working memory (WM) to alleviate anxiety symptoms, but the effectiveness of such an approach is unclear. Improved understanding of the effect of cognitive training on anxiety may facilitate the development of more effective cognitive training treatment for anxiety disorders. This study uses an experimental approach to examine the interplay of WM and anxiety following WM training. Previous studies show that increased demand on WM reduces concurrent anxiety evoked by threat of shock (induced anxiety). However, improving WM pharmacologically or via exercise prevents this anxiolytic effect. Conceivably, improving WM frees up cognitive resources to process threat information, thereby increasing anxiety. The present study tested the hypothesis that practicing a high load WM (i.e., increased demand) task would improve WM, and thus, free cognitive resources to process threat of shock, resulting in more anxiety (i.e., greater startle) during a subsequent WM task. Participants were randomly assigned to two training groups. The active-training group (N = 20) was trained on a 1- (low load) & 3-back (high load) WM task, whereas the control-training group (N = 20) performed a 0-back WM task. The experimental phase, similar in both groups, consisted of a 1- & 3-back WM task performed during both threat of shock and safety. As predicted, active training improved WM accuracy and increased anxiety during the experimental 3-back WM task. Therefore, improving WM efficiency can increase anxiety, possibly by freeing WM resources to process threat information.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据