Moscow State Lomonosov University SHORT-TERM MEMORY SCANNING AS A FUNCTION OF STRESS-RESISTANCE RESOURCES Maria S. Kapitsa Irina V. Blinnikova Anna B. Leonova Moscow State Lomonosov University

Introduction The effects of emotional states on characteristics of cognitive functioning were frequently investigated in psychological and psychophysiological studies (Martin, Clore, 2001). At the beginning these effects were considered to be disorganizing (Easterbrook, 1959). Later certain specific effects of emotions were described for different modes of information processing and changing cognitive strategies.

Introduction It was shown that emotional states exerted effects on working memory, and that the direction of these effects depends on whether pleasant or unpleasant emotions were experienced (Gray, 2001). Besides it was found that the more distorted processes of short-term memorizing are, the stronger the emotive impact is. They depend on the individual differences, as well (Gray, Braver, Raichle, 2002).

The goals of the current study To reveal subgroups differing in stress resistance (Leonova, 2001; 2004); To analyze cognitive performance under emotionally neutral and emotionally tense conditions.

Experiment setup Participants: 28 subjects: 12 f and 16 m, 17-29 years old Cognitive task: The Sternberg Item Recognition Task (differentiation of the types of memory search strategies) Experimental situations: A. “Ordinary” - routine execution of the Recognition Task with increasing memory load (10 min) B. “Emotional Stress” – execution of the Recognition Task after negative feedback about the quality of performance (10 min)

Pre- and post experiment diagnostics Six subscales to test PERSONALITY TRAITS and emotional disposition:Trait Anxiety Inventory, Trait Anger Inventory, Trait Depression Inventory, Burnout Self-Test, Type A Behavior Questionnaire, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Test; Five subscales to test CURRENT EMOTIONAL STATES: State Anxiety Inventory, State Anger Inventory, State Depression Inventory, Well-being Scale, Differential Emotions Scale; PHYSIOLOGICAL INDICATORS: heart rate, mode and amplitude of RR interval mode, performance of the main spectral components of the heart rate, parameters of sympathetic and parasympathetic links and the integral index of vegetative regulation

Subjects The analysis of personality traits and shifts in psychological and physiological indicators allows division of all the subjects into two subgroups considerably contrasting in the levels of stress resistance Lower stress resistance (11 subjects) Higher stress resistance (17 subjects)

Differences between two sub-groups in personality traits Indices Subgroup 1 Subgroup 2 Significance mean  Z p Trait Anxiety 48.86 6.33 37.18 3.80 -3.348 < 0.001 Trait Anger 34.00 3.96 30.82 5.33 -1.343 - Anger-Control 17.29 3.25 12.29 2.44 -3.142 Anger-Expression 16.7 3.99 18.53 4.29 -0.734 Trait Depression 23.00 2.94 16.71 2.87 -3.327 T-Euthymia 12.7 1.50 16.06 1.39 -3.509 T-Disthymia 10.7 3.09 7.77 1.79 -2.223 < 0.05 Chronic Fatigue 26.4 8.98 13.18 6.43 -3.155 Type A Behavior 23.57 3.41 18.06 4.70 -2.695 < 0.01 Burnout Emotional exhaustion 26.71 5.82 -2.897 Depersonalization 12.43 5.86 10.35 3.37 -0.989 Reduced sense of personal accomplishment 15.43 6.75 15.53 4.45 -0.287

Differences between two subgroups in State Scales (first assessment)

Differences between two subgroups in State Scales (second assessment)

Parameters of presentation H АA 1000 ms 200 + 500 ms N = 3 1000 ms

Negative Feedback Subjects were told that their results were considerably worse than standard either in the number of mistakes or in the reaction speed; Subjects were asked to carry out the second series of the test (in a simplified version) to “reestablish credit” and to achieve higher score.

Sternberg Item Recognition Test Cognitive task Sternberg Item Recognition Test Presentation of a list of 1-7 items (e.g., K, E, B, A, M, J, C); Presentation of a test item (e.g., P or E); Subject to say whether or not the test item was on the list; ET = 200 ms ISI = 500 ms Delay = 1000 ms

1. Higher stress-resistant group Main Results 1. Higher stress-resistant group A. B. “Exhaustive Search” “Self-Terminated Search” 2. Lower stress-resistant group B. !!! A. “Self-Terminated Search” “Mixed Strategy”

Conclusions The high stress resistance group used strategy of an exhaustive memory search which upon an emotional impact switched to the strategy of a self-terminating search increasing the task execution time; The low stress resistance group demonstrated an opposite trend: the group used the strategy of self-terminating search which upon an emotional impact switched to a mixed strategy demonstrating disorganization of the cognitive functions

Thank you for your attention!