Anticipatory Threat of Shock Reduces the Number of Items Reported From a Brief Visual Display: Evidence for Capacity Loss Along the Scanning Order

Background: Anticipatory anxiety impairs working memory, but whether it also limits the earliest, high-capacity stage of visual storage is unclear. We asked whether the mere expectation of an aversive electrical stimulus reduces how many items people can report from a briefly flashed display, and whether any loss is spatially uniform. Methods: Eighty-eight healthy adults aged 18-25 years were randomly allocated to a threat-of-shock condition (surface electrodes on the wrist and the instruction that a painful stimulus might be delivered; none was) or a control condition (n = 44 each). Participants viewed a 4 x 3 letter matrix for 400 ms and performed untimed written whole report. Correct recall (0-12), intrusions and the position of each reported letter were scored. Groups were compared with Welch's t test, the Mann-Whitney U test, bootstrapped effect sizes, a binomial generalised linear model and a Bayes factor; spatial effects were tested with generalised estimating equations (GEE) accounting for letters nested within participants. Results: The threat group reported fewer correct letters (3.41 +/- 1.09) than controls (4.70 +/- 1.29); Welch t(83.6) = 5.11, p < .001, Hedges' g = 1.08, 95% CI [0.70, 1.53], BF10 ~ 7,549. Intrusions did not differ (p = .376). Recall declined more steeply from left to right under threat (group x column chi2(3) = 11.24, p = .011), with losses confined to the third and fourth letters of the top row (FDR-corrected q <= .003). Conclusions: Anticipatory threat reduced the amount of information transferred from a brief display into a reportable form without increasing guessing. Intact first items and depleted later items along the habitual reading order indicate a reduced number of items read out of a rapidly decaying visual store, rather than a hemifield-specific bias. The single-trial design and the absence of a manipulation check limit mechanistic inference.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
Published
2026-11-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763403
Primary Topic
Memory Processes and Influences
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
preprint

Anticipatory Threat of Shock Reduces the Number of Items Reported From a Brief Visual Display: Evidence for Capacity Loss Along the Scanning Order

Tuğba ALTINTAŞ, Merve Aydın Karabaş, BARIŞ AKAR
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
Memory Processes and Influences
preprint

Anticipatory Threat of Shock Reduces the Number of Items Reported From a Brief Visual Display: Evidence for Capacity Loss Along the Scanning Order

Tuğba ALTINTAŞ, Merve Aydın Karabaş, BARIŞ AKAR
preprint en

Abstract

Background: Anticipatory anxiety impairs working memory, but whether it also limits the earliest, high-capacity stage of visual storage is unclear. We asked whether the mere expectation of an aversive electrical stimulus reduces how many items people can report from a briefly flashed display, and whether any loss is spatially uniform. Methods: Eighty-eight healthy adults aged 18-25 years were randomly allocated to a threat-of-shock condition (surface electrodes on the wrist and the instruction that a painful stimulus might be delivered; none was) or a control condition (n = 44 each). Participants viewed a 4 x 3 letter matrix for 400 ms and performed untimed written whole report. Correct recall (0-12), intrusions and the position of each reported letter were scored. Groups were compared with Welch's t test, the Mann-Whitney U test, bootstrapped effect sizes, a binomial generalised linear model and a Bayes factor; spatial effects were tested with generalised estimating equations (GEE) accounting for letters nested within participants. Results: The threat group reported fewer correct letters (3.41 +/- 1.09) than controls (4.70 +/- 1.29); Welch t(83.6) = 5.11, p < .001, Hedges' g = 1.08, 95% CI [0.70, 1.53], BF10 ~ 7,549. Intrusions did not differ (p = .376). Recall declined more steeply from left to right under threat (group x column chi2(3) = 11.24, p = .011), with losses confined to the third and fourth letters of the top row (FDR-corrected q <= .003). Conclusions: Anticipatory threat reduced the amount of information transferred from a brief display into a reportable form without increasing guessing. Intact first items and depleted later items along the habitual reading order indicate a reduced number of items read out of a rapidly decaying visual store, rather than a hemifield-specific bias. The single-trial design and the absence of a manipulation check limit mechanistic inference.

bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
Üsküdar University (TR)
Memory Processes and Influences
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon