Figure 5.

(A) Aversive learning increases perceived typicality. CS+ items from all temporal contexts were rated as more typical than CS− items. Items were scored from 1 (atypical) to 7 (very typical). CS+ category (animals or tools) was counterbalanced across participants. The group mean and 95% CI are displayed next to individual participants data. (B) Perceived typicality predicts recognition memory. Violins show the obtained distribution of logistic regression coefficients linking typicality ratings and item recognition. Horizontal white lines correspond to the mean and 95% CI. Each violin corresponds to a single logistic regression. Significance markers indicate whether the mean of the distribution is reliably different from zero. (C) Perceived typicality varied by temporal context source judgements. Items that were sourced to preconditioning were also judged to be the most typical. The stepwise comparisons were all significant, such that preconditioning was greater than conditioning, which was greater than postconditioning. Participant average data (with 95% CI) are shown, but statistics were run on trial-wise data in a mixed effects model. (∼) P = 0.057, (*) P < 0.05, (***) P < 0.001.