Fig. 2: Change of preference rating following value learning. | Nature Communications

Fig. 2: Change of preference rating following value learning.

From: Trait anxiety is associated with reduced reward-related replay at rest

Fig. 2

a Increased (post–pre) preference rating of stimuli based on distance to reward/neutral icon (referred to as sequence position) for both reward and neutral sequences. Rewarded sequence: Statistically significant position × time interaction (two-way ANOVA: F (3, 201) = 5.44, p = 0.001, η² = 0.075). Position 4 increase: t (67) = −3.32, p = 0.001, Cohen’s d = −0.40, 95% CI = [−0.97, −0.24] (paired t-test, two-sided). Neutral sequence: No statistically significant interaction (F (3, 201) = 1.58, p = 0.195, η² = 0.023). Data presented as mean ± SEM (n = 68 participants); each dot indicates results from one participant. The density curves illustrate probability distributions, with width indicating response density. b The increased preference rating on object (D), paired with reward, is linked to trait anxiety score, evident in a negative correlation between increased preference rating and trait anxiety score (Pearson correlation: r (66) = −0.26, p = 0.036, 95% CI = [−0.47, −0.02], two-sided). Each dot indicates results from one participant. The solid line reflects the best robust linear fit, with a shaded band that represents a 95% confidence interval of the fit. c Increases in stimuli preference as a function of distance to reward. There was a statistically significant positive linear relationship between closeness to reward and increase in preference for low anxious participants (β = 0.31 ± 0.11, t (142) = 2.68, p = 0.008, 95% CI = [0.08, 0.53], n = 36, blue dots), but not so for participants with high anxiety (β = 0.20 ± 0.12, t (126) = 1.63, p = 0.106, 95% CI = [−0.04, 0.44], n = 32, red dots) (no statistically significant difference between groups (independent samples t-test, t (65) = 0.68, p > 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.16, 95% CI = [−0.22, 0.44])). Data presented as mean ± SEM; each dot indicates results from one participant (n = 68). The solid line reflects the best robust linear fit, ns not statistically significant, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Back to article page