Countering Fear Renewal: Changes in the UCS Representation Generalize Across Contexts

Leer, Arne; Engelhard, Iris M.

doi:10.1016/j.beth.2014.09.012

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given that we used 500 ms (i.e., compared to other studies a relatively long shock in the present study), our measures of the CR with electric shock are rather over‐ than underestimated with regard to commonly used paradigms. Moreover, 1,000‐ms white noise bursts are often used in fear conditioning studies and demonstrate ecological validity for many fear conditioning experiments (Khodam Hazrati, Miskovic, Príncipe, & Keil, ; LaBar, LeDoux, Spencer, & Phelps, ; Leer & Engelhard, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A pragmatic comparison of noise burst and electric shock unconditioned stimuli for fear conditioning research with many trials

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several methods that are promising for studying the neurophysiology of fear conditioning (e.g., EEG, MEG) require a high number of trials to achieve an adequate signal‐to‐noise ratio. While electric shock and white noise burst are among the most commonly used unconditioned stimuli (US) in conventional fear conditioning studies with few trials, it is unknown whether these stimuli are equally well suited for paradigms with many trials. Here, N = 32 participants underwent a 260‐trial differential fear conditioning and extinction paradigm with a 240‐trial recall test 24 h later and neutral faces as conditioned stimuli. In a between‐subjects design, either white noise bursts (n = 16) or electric shocks (n = 16) served as US, and intensities were determined using the most common procedure for each US (i.e., a fixed 95 dB noise burst and a work‐up procedure for electric shocks, respectively). In addition to differing US types, groups also differed in closely linked US‐associated characteristics (e.g., calibration methods, stimulus intensities, timing). Subjective ratings (arousal/valence), skin conductance, and evoked heart period changes (i.e., fear bradycardia) indicated more reliable, extinction‐resistant, and stable conditioning in the white noise burst versus electric shock group. In fear conditioning experiments where many trials are presented, white noise burst should serve as US.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A pragmatic comparison of noise burst and electric shock unconditioned stimuli for fear conditioning research with many trials

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These results demonstrate that changes in subjective fear are relevant to explain the additive effects of CS-US pairings. Our results thus argue that fear ratings are a relevant measure to include in (instructed) fear conditioning studies and underline the possibility that US expectancy ratings may be affected by factors unrelated to fear, such as experimental demand effects, and may be unaffected by other factors important to fear, such as the US evaluation (e.g., Leer & Engelhard, 2015). (1) = .097 p = .756 χ2(1) = .082 p = .960 χ2(1) < .001 p = .998 χ2(1) = .035 p = .852 χ2(1) < .001 p = .998 χ2(1) < .001 p = .995 χ2(1) < .001 p = 1 χ2(1) < .001 p = .998 χ2(1) < .001 p = 1 Note: For the analysis regarding the subjective measures we combined the data from all the different studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 52%

Does US expectancy mediate the additive effects of CS-US pairings on contingency instructions? Results from subjective, psychophysiological and neural measures

Mertens

Braem

Kuhn

et al. 2018

Behaviour Research and Therapy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Verbal instructions are a powerful pathway to learn new fear relations, and an important question has been what fear experience can still add to the effect of such instructions. Therefore, in previous studies, we investigated the effects of pairings between conditioned stimuli (CS) and unconditioned stimuli (US) after CS-US contingency instructions. Although these studies found that CS-US pairings do indeed add to the effects of contingency instructions on subjective, psychophysiological and neural measures of conditioned fear, they also produce increases in US expectancy ratings. In the current report we address whether these enhanced US expectancy ratings can account for the additive effects of CS-US pairings as suggested by expectancy models of fear conditioning. To address this question we made use of pathway models to investigate mediation in within-subjects designs. Our results demonstrate that US expectancy ratings do not mediate the effects of CS-US pairings on fear ratings, the startle reflex or amygdala activation pattern similarity. Additional exploratory analyses, however, revealed that subjective fear ratings do explain the effects of CS-US pairings on the other measures. We discuss how these results relate to expectancy models of fear conditioning and what they implicate for the validity of US expectancy and fear ratings.

show abstract

“…US aversiveness ratings (how unpleasant is the shock on a scale from 1 to 10) did not strongly decrease from the start to the end of the experiment. Possibly, a different measure [e.g., US costs ( 18 )] may be a more comprehensive and sensitive measure of US intensity. Likewise, SCR did not decrease significantly over repeated US-only or paired CS–US trials during intervention.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second route to fear decrease, via changing the perceived US intensity, has received much less attention, although a number of laboratory studies in healthy individuals confirmed that weakening the perceived US intensity is an effective means to decrease fears ( 6 , 16 – 18 ). These studies used different strategies to devalue the US such as (1) repeated exposures to the actual US, (2) exposures to USs of decreasing intensity, and (3) instructions to recall the aversive event and mentally rescript it into a more neutral image (imagery rescripting).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These studies used different strategies to devalue the US such as (1) repeated exposures to the actual US, (2) exposures to USs of decreasing intensity, and (3) instructions to recall the aversive event and mentally rescript it into a more neutral image (imagery rescripting). Interestingly, some studies also suggest that fear decrease obtained by changing the perceived US intensity may be more resistant to context changes than the standard fear extinction effect ( 6 , 16 , 18 ). Thus, when CS–US fear conditioning occurred in context A and was followed by repeated US presentations in a separate context B, test presentations of the CS in context A elicited a low level of fear as measured by skin conductance reactivity ( 6 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beyond Extinction: Prolonged Conditioning and Repeated Threat Exposure Abolish Contextual Renewal of Fear-Potentiated Startle Discrimination but Leave Expectancy Ratings Intact

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extinction treatments decrease fear via repeated exposures to the conditioned stimulus (CS) and are associated with a return of fear. Alternatively, fear can be reduced via reductions in the perceived intensity of the unconditioned stimulus (US), e.g., through repeated exposures to the US. Promisingly, the few available studies show that repeated US exposures outperform standard extinction. US exposure treatments can decrease fear via two routes: (1) by weakening the CS–US association (extinction-like mechanism), and/or (2) by weakening the subjective US aversiveness (habituation-like mechanism). The current study further investigated the conditions under which US exposure treatment may reduce renewal, by adding a group in which CS–US pairings continued following fear acquisition. During acquisition, participants learned that one of two visual stimuli (CS+/CS−) predicted the occurrence of an aversive electrocutaneous stimulus (US). Next, the background context changed and participants received one of three interventions: repeated CS exposures, (2) repeated US exposures, or (3) continued CS–US pairings. Following repeated CS exposures, test presentations of the CSs in the original conditioning context revealed intact CS+/CS− differentiation in the fear-potentiated startle reflex, while the differentiation was abolished in the other two groups. Differential US expectancy ratings, on the other hand, were intact in all groups. Skin conductance data were inconclusive because standard context renewal following CS exposures did not occur. Unexpectedly, there was no evidence for a habituation-like process having taken place during US exposures or continued CS–US pairings. The results provide further evidence that US exposures outperform the standard extinction treatment and show that effects are similar when US exposures are part of CS–US pairings.

show abstract

Countering Fear Renewal: Changes in the UCS Representation Generalize Across Contexts

Cited by 14 publications

References 41 publications

A pragmatic comparison of noise burst and electric shock unconditioned stimuli for fear conditioning research with many trials

A pragmatic comparison of noise burst and electric shock unconditioned stimuli for fear conditioning research with many trials

Does US expectancy mediate the additive effects of CS-US pairings on contingency instructions? Results from subjective, psychophysiological and neural measures

Beyond Extinction: Prolonged Conditioning and Repeated Threat Exposure Abolish Contextual Renewal of Fear-Potentiated Startle Discrimination but Leave Expectancy Ratings Intact

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About