Impaired differential learning of fear versus safety signs in obsessive‐compulsive disorder

Elsner, Björn; Reuter, Benedikt; Said, Mahboba; Linnman, Clas; Kathmann, Norbert; Beucke, Jan-Carl

doi:10.1111/psyp.13956

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…extent than do non-anxious control participants, owing to heightened fear responses to the safety cue in those with an anxiety disorder [66][67][68][69] . Despite the evidence confirming the results of the meta-analysis discussed above 51 , a few studies found lower skin conductance responses to the threat cue in individuals with PTSD and obsessive-compulsive disorder than in controls 70,71 . Although those observations might be consistent with a deficit in differentiating threat from safety cues, they deviate from the conclusion of the meta-analysis that there are differences in differential responding but generally not in threat cue responding between individuals with and without anxiety disorder.…”

Section: Extinction Generalization and Avoidancementioning

confidence: 75%

Understanding clinical fear and anxiety through the lens of human fear conditioning

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fear is an adaptive emotion that mobilizes defensive resources upon confrontation with danger. However, fear becomes maladaptive and can give rise to the development of clinical anxiety when it exceeds the degree of threat, generalizes broadly across stimuli and contexts, persists after the danger is gone or promotes excessive avoidance behaviour. Pavlovian fear conditioning has been the prime research instrument that has led to substantial progress in understanding the multi-faceted psychological and neurobiological mechanisms of fear in past decades. In this Perspective, we suggest that fruitful use of Pavlovian fear conditioning as a laboratory model of clinical anxiety requires moving beyond the study of fear acquisition to associated fear conditioning phenomena: fear extinction, generalization of conditioned fear and fearful avoidance. Understanding individual differences in each of these phenomena, not only in isolation but also in how they interact, will further strengthen the external validity of the fear conditioning model as a tool with which to study maladaptive fear as it manifests in clinical anxiety.

show abstract

Section: Extinction Generalization and Avoidancementioning

confidence: 75%

Understanding clinical fear and anxiety through the lens of human fear conditioning

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, some studies administer self-report measures designed explicitly to test components of conditioning models (e.g., expectation violation; Elsner et al, 2022), but do not assess objective in vivo measures of conditioned responding (e.g., psychophysiology). If intervention scientists seek to directly test temporal dynamics of candidate conditioning-related mechanisms of change during a treatment study, the reliability of conditioning tasks on the scale of weeks must be established.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These relatively shorter test–retest intervals are important, as many exposure therapy studies assess changes in symptoms and related psychological variables (e.g., treatment mediators) every week or biweekly (e.g., Kothgassner et al, 2019; Mataix‐Cols et al, 2017). Further, some studies administer self‐report measures designed explicitly to test components of conditioning models (e.g., expectation violation; Elsner et al, 2022), but do not assess objective in vivo measures of conditioned responding (e.g., psychophysiology). If intervention scientists seek to directly test temporal dynamics of candidate conditioning‐related mechanisms of change during a treatment study, the reliability of conditioning tasks on the scale of weeks must be established.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Test–retest reliability of human threat conditioning and generalization across a 1‐to‐2‐week interval

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the increasing use of threat conditioning and generalization for clinical-translational research efforts, establishing test-retest reliability of these paradigms is necessary. Specifically, it is an empirical question whether the same participant evinces a similar generalization gradient of conditioned responses across two sessions with the identical contingencies and stimuli. Here, 51 human volunteers participated in an identical auditory threat acquisition and generalization protocol at two sessions separated by 9 days. Skin conductance responses (SCR) and trial-bytrial shock risk ratings served as primary dependent measures. We used linear mixed effects modeling to test differential threat responses and generalization gradients, and Generalizability (G) theory coefficients to formally assess test-retest reliability of intra-individual stability and change across time. Results showed largely invariant differential conditioning and generalization gradients across time. G coefficients indicated fair reliability for the majority of acquisition and generalization measures. Our findings support reliability of the threat conditioning and generalization paradigm and highlight their utility for assessments of behavioral interventions in mental health research.

show abstract

Fear and Safety Learning in Anxiety- and Stress-Related Disorders: An Updated Meta-Analysis

Kausche,

Carsten,

Sobania

et al. 2024

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impaired differential learning of fear versus safety signs in obsessive‐compulsive disorder

Abstract: This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri butio n-NonCo mmerc ial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Cited by 4 publications

References 47 publications

Understanding clinical fear and anxiety through the lens of human fear conditioning

Understanding clinical fear and anxiety through the lens of human fear conditioning

Test–retest reliability of human threat conditioning and generalization across a 1‐to‐2‐week interval

Fear and Safety Learning in Anxiety- and Stress-Related Disorders: An Updated Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About