Threat processing: models and mechanisms

Bentz, Dorothée; Schiller, Daniela

doi:10.1002/wcs.1353

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 140 publications

(247 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Lastly, if new learning is responsible for the attenuation of a defensive response, then a previously conditioned CS should more readily enter a new association upon re-conditioning, a phenomenon termed savings. For example, following extinction, fewer conditioning trials can cause the CS to regain its threatening properties than are required for training with a naïve CS [3, 4, 8–10]. While memories attenuated through new learning are susceptible to at least one of the above challenges, those that have been unlearned are deemed incapable of reemergence in any way.…”

Section: Behavioral Disambiguation Of New Learning From Unlearningmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Learning and Unlearning: Strangers or Accomplices in Threat Memory Attenuation?

Clem

Schiller

2016

Trends in Neurosciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To achieve greatest efficacy, therapies for attenuating fear and anxiety should preclude the re-emergence of emotional responses. Of relevance to this aim, preclinical models of threat memory reduction are considered to engage one of two discrete neural processes: either establishment of a new behavioral response that competes with, and thereby temporarily interferes with expression of, an intact threat memory (new learning), or one which modifies and thereby disrupts an intact threat memory (unlearning). We contend that a strict dichotomy of new learning and unlearning does not provide a compelling explanation for current data. Instead, we suggest the evidence warrants consideration of alternative models that assume cooperation rather than competition between formation of new cellular traces and the modification of preexisting ones.

show abstract

Section: Behavioral Disambiguation Of New Learning From Unlearningmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Learning and Unlearning: Strangers or Accomplices in Threat Memory Attenuation?

Clem

Schiller

2016

Trends in Neurosciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The majority of support for such a specialized circuitry comes from rodent research on the acquisition and extinction of fear-responses to conditioned stimuli (see e.g. Apps & Strata, 2015;Bentz & Schiller, 2015;Calhoon & Tye, 2015;Gross & Sabino Canteras, 2012;Karalis et al, 2016;Li et al, 2013;Tovote, Fadok, & Lüthi, 2015;Van Le et al, 2016).…”

Section: Theories Of Prioritized Threat Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…bottom-up driven) detection and evaluation of stimuli with a high threat value (Bentz & Schiller, 2015;2015;). Such theories suggest that threat processing is (largely) unaffected by top-down cognitive influences, but it remains debated whether attention to threat is contingent on top-down influences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Top-down influences on the attentional orienting to and disengagement from threat

Vromen¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rapid detection and processing of potential threats enables a fast response to danger and provides a survival benefit (e.g. Tooby & Cosmides, 1990).Theories of threat processing suggest that we have a specialized threat module that enables the automatic (i.e. bottom-up driven) detection and evaluation of stimuli with a high threat value (Bentz & Schiller, 2015;2015;). Such theories suggest that threat processing is (largely) unaffected by top-down cognitive influences, but it remains debated whether attention to threat is contingent on top-down influences.Furthermore, it remains unexplored whether top-down processes can differentially affect the pre-attentive orienting of attention to threat and the subsequent disengagement of focal attention from such a threat. Strong versions of the threat module would predict that both the early (i.e. orienting) and later processing (i.e. disengagement) of threat should be unaffected by top-down influences, whereas more moderate versions would propose only the early stages of threat processing (i.e. orienting) to be unaffected by topdown processes. Theories of attention on the other hand do not explicitly model attention to be contingent on a stimulus' threat value. Such theories propose that only a stimulus its features (e.g. green) can be processed pre-attentively and thus a stimulus' identity and its associated threat value should not drive orienting , Wolfe, Cave, & Franzel, 1989 Wolfe, , 2006. Moreover, such theories propose that both orienting and disengagement should be subject to top-down modulation, albeit perhaps to different degrees (see .In this thesis I assessed whether top-down task goals modulate attention to threat. I assessed specifically how the relevance of a potential threat to the current task-goal affects the orienting and disengagement of attention. To disentangle orienting and disengagement, I developed a novel cueing paradigm that controlled the allocation of attention before the threat presentation. On disengagement trials, attention would be precued to the threat location; on orienting trials attention would be pre-cued to one of the non-threat locations. The goal-relevance of the threat was manipulated by rendering the threat distractor its identity similar or dissimilar to one of the targets.In Chapter 2, I assessed the influence of top-down task goals on the disengagement of focal attention. Specifically, I investigated whether disengagement from a simplistic threat distractor (spider silhouette) is contingent on the threat distractor's relevance to the immediate task-goal. Across two experiments I varied which stimuli were the designated targets (coloured green) that required a response. The results show that iii the threat distractor delayed disengagement when its identity was relevant to the current task-goal (i.e. identify whether the target is a spider or cat), but not when it was irrelevant to the task-goal (i.e. identify whether the target is a bird or fish). Thus, chapter 2 provides initial evidence that disengagement from...

show abstract

Extinction during reconsolidation eliminates recovery of fear conditioned to fear-irrelevant and fear-relevant stimuli

Thompson

Lipp

2017

Behaviour Research and Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Threat processing: models and mechanisms

Cited by 6 publications

References 140 publications

New Learning and Unlearning: Strangers or Accomplices in Threat Memory Attenuation?

New Learning and Unlearning: Strangers or Accomplices in Threat Memory Attenuation?

Top-down influences on the attentional orienting to and disengagement from threat

Extinction during reconsolidation eliminates recovery of fear conditioned to fear-irrelevant and fear-relevant stimuli

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About