↓ Skip to main content

Failure to filter: anxious individuals show inefficient gating of threat from working memory

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
116 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
198 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Failure to filter: anxious individuals show inefficient gating of threat from working memory
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00058
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel M. Stout, Alexander J. Shackman, Christine L. Larson

Abstract

Dispositional anxiety is a well-established risk factor for the development of psychiatric disorders along the internalizing spectrum, including anxiety and depression. Importantly, many of the maladaptive behaviors characteristic of anxiety, such as anticipatory apprehension, occur when threat is absent. This raises the possibility that anxious individuals are less efficient at gating threat's access to working memory, a limited capacity workspace where information is actively retained, manipulated, and used to flexibly guide goal-directed behavior when it is no longer present in the external environment. Using a well-validated neurophysiological index of working memory storage, we demonstrate that threat-related distracters were difficult to filter on average and that this difficulty was exaggerated among anxious individuals. These results indicate that dispositionally anxious individuals allocate excessive working memory storage to threat, even when it is irrelevant to the task at hand. More broadly, these results provide a novel framework for understanding the maladaptive thoughts and actions characteristic of internalizing disorders.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 189 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 25%
Student > Master 27 14%
Researcher 20 10%
Student > Bachelor 16 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Other 40 20%
Unknown 31 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 93 47%
Neuroscience 28 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 2%
Other 14 7%
Unknown 43 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 April 2013.
All research outputs
#6,144,651
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,548
of 7,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,355
of 281,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#366
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,145 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,034 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.