Skip to main content
. 2015 May 6;6:582. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00582

Figure 5.

Figure 5

(A) Corrected recognition scores (hit rate—false alarm rate) in Experiment 3. Unpleasant distractors caused a detrimental effect on WM accuracy, compared to neutral and pleasant distractors, as well as to a scenario free of distraction (*p < 0.05; **p < 0.005; ***p < 0.001; ****p < 0.0001). (B) Mean reaction times for accurate recognitions in Experiment 2. Unpleasant distractors caused a slower performance on WM, compared to a scenario free of distraction (*p < 0.05). Performance during pleasant and neutral distraction might also tend to be slower than during no-distraction († p = 0.07 and †† p = 0.08, respectively). Error bars represent standard error of mean.