Does a high working memory capacity attenuate the negative impact of trait anxiety on attentional control? Evidence from the antisaccade task
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AbstractAccording to attentional control theory, high trait anxious individuals experience reduced attentional control as compared to low trait anxious individuals due to the imbalance between goal-directed and stimulus-driven attentional systems. One consequence is that high trait anxious individuals have difficulty resisting distraction, as compared to low trait anxious individuals. A separate line of research on individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) has shown that individuals with higher WMC have better attentional control and thus are better able to resist distraction. The present study investigated the hypothesis that high WMC compensates for high trait anxiety in a task that evaluates the ability to resist distraction, the antisaccade task. Participants completed the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory to measure trait anxiety and the Operation Span and Reading Span tasks to measure WMC. As hypothesised, individuals who were high trait anxious exhibited increased attentional control on the antisaccade task when they had high WMC. Theoretical implications and directions for future research are discussed.Keywords: Antisaccade taskAttentional controlTrait anxietyWorking memory capacity We thank Brittany Bennett, Anna Goupal, Meagan Just-Mancini, Shannon St. Pier, and Dolores Viteri for their assistance with data collection and coding. We also thank three anonymous reviewers for their excellent feedback and suggestions.This research was supported by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and Alberta Innovates-Health Solutions (AIHS) to C. R. Sears and a graduate scholarship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to C. A. Wright.We thank Brittany Bennett, Anna Goupal, Meagan Just-Mancini, Shannon St. Pier, and Dolores Viteri for their assistance with data collection and coding. We also thank three anonymous reviewers for their excellent feedback and suggestions.This research was supported by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and Alberta Innovates-Health Solutions (AIHS) to C. R. Sears and a graduate scholarship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to C. A. Wright.Notes1 The target identification component of the task was not expected to be affected by attentional control abilities, but for completeness we report the analyses of the target identification latencies and errors. A mixed-model ANOVA with target identification latencies as the dependent variable produced a main effect of Task, F(1, 68) = 85.55, p < .001, MSE = 179322.22, partial η2 = .56, no effect of Anxiety Group (F < 1), and no Anxiety Group × Task interaction (F < 1). The identical analysis of the percentage of target identification errors also produced a main effect of Task, F(1, 68) = 28.57, p < .001, MSE = 77.14, partial η2 = .30, no effect of Anxiety Group (F < 1), and no Anxiety Group × Task interaction (F < 1).2 We created a composite measure of WMC (using the mean of the standardised OSPAN and RSPAN scores) and used this predictor in the same regression analysis of antisaccade latencies. Using this composite measure, the Anxiety Group × RSPAN/OSPAN interaction was marginally significant (B = −27.98, β = −.190, p = .05). The nature of the interaction was identical to the one observed in the RSPAN regression analysis (the difference between the groups' antisaccade latencies decreased as scores on the RSPAN/OSPAN composite measure increased). This outcome suggests that this interaction is present for both measures of WMC, but that it is weaker for the OSPAN measure.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle