The neurocognitive role of working memory load when Pavlovian motivational control affects instrumental learning
Fig 2
(A) Task accuracies (mean percentages of correct responses) in the GNG and WMGNG tasks show that participants performed better in the GNG task than in the WMGNG task. (B) Accuracy in each of the four trial types between the two tasks demonstrated that participants performed better in “go to win” and “no-go to avoid losing” trials (Pavlovian-congruent, blue) than in “no-go to win” and “go to avoid losing” trials (Pavlovian-incongruent, red). (C) The learning curve (i.e., the increase in accuracy across trials) was shallower in the WMGNG task than in the GNG task. Note that moving average smoothing was applied with filter size 5 to remove the fine variation between time steps. Lines indicate group means and ribbons indicate means ± standard errors of the means. (D) Pavlovian bias was calculated by subtracting accuracy in Pavlovian-incongruent conditions (“no-go to win” + “go to avoid losing”) from accuracy in Pavlovian-congruent conditions (“go to win” + “no-go to avoid losing”). No significant difference in Pavlovian bias was observed between the GNG and WMGNG tasks. (A)-(B), (D) Black dots indicate group means and error bars indicate means ± standard errors of the means. Gray dots indicate individual accuracies; lines connect a single participant’s performances. Asterisks indicate the results of pairwise t-tests. **** p < 0.0001, *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.