The so-called 'replicability crisis' has sparked methodological discussions in many areas of science in general, and in psychology in particular. This has led to recent endeavours to promote the transparency, rigour, and ultimately, replicability of research. Originating from this zeitgeist, the challenge to discuss critical issues on terminology, design, methods, and analysis considerations in fear conditioning research is taken up by this work, which involved representatives from fourteen of the major human fear conditioning laboratories in Europe. This compendium is intended to provide a basis for the development of a common procedural and terminology framework for the field of human fear conditioning. Whenever possible, we give general recommendations. When this is not feasible, we provide evidence-based guidance for methodological decisions on study design, outcome measures, and analyses. Importantly, this work is also intended to raise awareness and initiate discussions on crucial questions with respect to data collection, processing, statistical analyses, the impact of subtle procedural changes, and data reporting specifically tailored to the research on fear conditioning.

Current fear-avoidance models consider fear of pain as a key factor in the development of chronic musculoskeletal pain. Generally, the idea is that by virtue of the formation of associations or acquired propositional knowledge about the relation between neutral movements and pain, these movements may signal pain, and hence start to elicit defensive fear responses (eg, avoidance behavior). This assumption has never been investigated experimentally. Therefore, we developed a pain-relevant fear conditioning paradigm using a movement as a conditioned stimulus (CS) and a painful electrocutaneous stimulus as an unconditioned stimulus (US) to examine the acquisition of fear of movement-related pain in healthy subjects. In a within-subjects design, participants manipulated a joystick to the left/right in the experimental (predictable) condition, and upward/downward in the control (unpredictable) condition or vice versa. In the predictable condition, one movement direction (CS+), and not the other (CS-), was followed by painful stimuli. In the unpredictable condition, painful stimuli were always delivered during the intertrial interval. Both fear of movement-related pain ratings and eyeblink startle measures were more elevated in response to the CS+ than to the CS-, whereas no differences occurred between both unreinforced CSs in the control condition. Participants were slower initiating a CS+ movement than a CS- movement, while response latencies to CSs in the control condition did not differ. These data support the acquisition of fear of movement-related pain by associative learning. Results are discussed in the broader context of the acquisition of pain-related fear in patients with musculoskeletal pain.

Ample empirical evidence endorses the role of associative learning in pain-related fear acquisition. Nevertheless, research typically focused on self-reported and psychophysiological measures of fear. Avoidance, which is overt behavior preventing the occurrence of an aversive (painful) stimulus, has been largely neglected so far. Therefore, we aimed to fill this gap and developed an operant conditioning procedure for pain-related avoidance behavior. Participants moved their arm to a target location using the HapticMaster (FCS Robotics; Moog Inc, East Aurora, New York), a 3 degrees-of-freedom, force-controlled robotic arm. Three movement trajectories led to the target location. If participants in the Experimental Group took the shortest/easiest trajectory, they always received a painful stimulus (T1 = 100% reinforcement; no resistance). If they deviated from this trajectory, the painful stimulus could be partly or totally prevented (T2 = 50% reinforcement; T3 = 0% reinforcement), but more effort was needed (T2 = moderate resistance and deviation; T3 = strongest resistance and largest deviation). The Yoked Group received the same reinforcement schedule irrespective of their own behavior. During the subsequent extinction phase, no painful stimuli were delivered. Self-reported pain-expectancy and pain-related fear were assessed, and avoidance behavior was operationalized as the maximal distance from the shortest trajectory. During acquisition, the Experimental Group reported more pain-related fear and pain-expectancy to T1 vs T2 vs T3 and deviated more from the shortest trajectory than the Yoked Group. During subsequent extinction, avoidance behavior, self-reported fear, and pain-expectancy decreased significantly, but conditioned differences persisted despite the absence of painful stimuli. To conclude, this operant learning task might provide a valid paradigm to study pain-related avoidance behavior in future studies.

No abstract