A review on mental imagery in fear conditioning research 100 years since the 'Little Albert' study

Since the seminal 'Little Albert' study by Watson and Rayner (1920), fear conditioning has become one of the most commonly used paradigms for studying the etiology of anxiety-related disorders. In a fear conditioning procedure, a (neutral) conditioned stimulus (CS) is paired with an aversive unconditioned stimulus (US), resulting in fear-related conditioned responses (CRs) to the CS. Whereas fear conditioning research initially focused on observable elements in the environment (i.e., CSs, USs, and their contingency) and their effects (i.e., CRs), subsequent research indicated that attention should also be given to unobservable mental events (e.g., intrusive memories of aversive outcomes) to more fully account for the symptomatology of anxiety disorders. In this paper, we review the research relating to four major research questions on the relationship between mental imagery and fear conditioning: (1) Can mental imagery substitute for actual stimulus administration? (2) Can mental imagery inflate CRs? (3) Can fear conditioning result in the installment of mental images as CRs (Le., intrusions)? (4) Can mental imagery-based interventions reduce CRs? For all these research questions, tentative confirmatory evidence has been found and these findings corroborate contemporary conditioning theories. Nonetheless, we point to several open questions and methodological issues that require further research

Human fear conditioning depends on stimulus contingency instructions

Human fear conditioning is often seen as the result of a highly automatic process that is independent of higher cognitive functions and verbal instructions. However, cumulative research findings call this view into question. In the current preregistered study (N = 102), we investigated whether the number of participants who successfully show conditioned fear acquisition depends on the instructions given to them before the fear conditioning phase. Particularly, one third of the participants were instructed about the precise contingency between the conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (US). Another third was merely instructed that there would be a contingency. The last third did not get any instructions about the CS-US contingency. We found facilitated fear acquisition rate in the first and second group compared to the third group. Furthermore, contingency reversal instructions following the acquisition phase reversed both conditioned skin conductance and startle responses. These results highlight that researchers should systematically report the instructions given to participants in human fear conditioning studies

Human fear conditioning is moderated by stimulus contingency instructions

Recent research findings indicate that human fear conditioning is affected by instructions, particularly those concerning the contingency between the conditioned stimulus (CS) and the unconditioned stimulus (US). However, whether or not such instructions were provided to participants often remains unsaid in fear conditioning studies. In the current study (N = 102), we investigated whether conditioned fear acquisition depends on CS-US contingency instructions. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups. The first group was instructed about the precise CS-US contingency before conditioning. The second group was instructed to discover the CS-US contingency. The third group did not receive any contingency instructions. We found facilitated fear acquisition (using skin conductance and startle) and increased contingency awareness in the first and second group compared to the third group. Furthermore, contingency reversal instructions immediately reversed conditioned responses. Based on these results, we advise to systematically report the contingency instructions used in fear conditioning research

The exploration-exploitation dilemma in pain:an experimental investigation

ABSTRACT: Daily life consists of a chain of decisions. Typically, individuals may choose to pursue what they already know (exploitation), or to search for other options (exploration). This exploration-exploitation dilemma is a topic of interest across multiple scientific fields. Here we propose that investigating how individuals solve this dilemma may improve our understanding of how individuals make behavioral decisions (e.g., avoidance) when facing pain. To this end, we present the data of three experiments in which healthy individuals were given the opportunity to choose between four different movements, with each movement being associated with different probabilities of receiving a painful outcome only (Experiment 1), or pain and/or a reward (Experiment 2). We also investigated whether participants stuck to their decisions when the contingencies between each movement and the painful/rewarding outcome changed during the task (Experiment 3). The key findings across all experiments are the following: First, after initial exploration, participants most often exploited the safest option. Second, participants weighted rewards more heavily than receiving pain. Lastly, after receiving a painful outcome, participants were more inclined to explore than to exploit a rewarding movement. We argue that by focusing more on how individuals in pain solve the exploration-exploitation dilemma is helpful in understanding behavioral decision-making in pain

The elusive nature of the blocking effect: 15 failures to replicate

With the discovery of the blocking effect, learning theory took a huge leap forward, because blocking provided a crucial clue that surprise is what drives learning. This in turn stimulated the development of novel association-formation theories of learning. Eventually, the ability to explain blocking became nothing short of a touchstone for the validity of any theory of learning, including propositional and other nonassociative theories. The abundance of publications reporting a blocking effect and the importance attributed to it suggest that it is a robust phenomenon. Yet, in the current article we report 15 failures to observe a blocking effect despite the use of procedures that are highly similar or identical to those used in published studies. Those failures raise doubts regarding the canonical nature of the blocking effect and call for a reevaluation of the central status of blocking in theories of learning. They may also illustrate how publication bias influences our perspective toward the robustness and reliability of seemingly established effects in the psychological literature

Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer in individuals with chronic pain

Avoidance of pain has been argued to be key factor leading pain events to chronic disability. In this respect, research has focused on investigating the working mechanisms of avoidance's acquisition. Avoidance of painful stimuli has been traditionally studied using a combination of Pavlovian and Instrumental procedures. However, such approach seems to go against real-life scenarios where avoidance is commonly acquired more readily. Using a novel pain avoidance paradigm, we tested whether pain avoidance can be installed in absence of associations between a cue and pain omission, and whether such avoidance differs between pain patients and healthy controls. Participants first learned to avoid painful stimuli by pressing a grip bar. Then, they passively encountered pairings of one geometrical shape with pain and of another geometrical shape without pain. Lastly, participants encountered the geometrical shapes while being able to use the grip bar. Results showed that participants pressed the bar more vigorously when encountering the previously pain-related shape compared to the pain-unrelated shape. This effect did not seem to differ between pain patients and healthy control. Our study could inspire a new way in measuring avoidance in pain, possibly paving the way to better understanding how avoidance is installed in chronic pain

Maine Campus October 29 1993

Complex learning procedures might be better suited than the common differential fear conditioning paradigm for detecting individual differences related to vulnerability for anxiety disorders. Two such procedures are the blocking procedure, which entails, in essence, selective learning of safety, and the protection-from-overshadowing procedure, which involves selective learning of threat. Their comparison allows for the examination of discriminatory fear learning under conditions of ambiguity. The present study examined the role of individual differences in such discriminatory fear learning. We hypothesized that heightened trait anxiety would be related to a deficit in discriminatory fear learning. Participants gave US-expectancy ratings as an index for the threat value of individual CSs following blocking and protection-from-overshadowing training. The difference in threat value at test between the protected-from-overshadowing CS and the blocked CS was negatively correlated with scores on a self-report tension-stress scale that approximates facets of generalized anxiety disorder (DASS-S), but not with other individual difference variables. In addition, a behavioral test showed that only participants scoring high on the DASS-S avoided the protected-from-overshadowing CS. This observed deficit in discriminatory fear learning for participants with high levels of tension-stress might be an underlying mechanism for fear overgeneralization in diffuse anxiety disorders such as generalized anxiety disorder.status: publishe

Individual Differences in Heart Rate Variability Predict the Degree of Slowing during Response Inhibition and Initiation in the Presence of Emotional Stimuli

Response inhibition is a hallmark of executive control and crucial to support flexible behavior in a constantly changing environment. Recently, it has been shown that response inhibition is influenced by the presentation of emotional stimuli (Verbruggen and De Houwer, 2007). Healthy individuals typically differ in the degree to which they are able to regulate their emotional state, but it remains unknown whether individual differences in emotion regulation (ER) may alter the interplay between emotion and response inhibition. Here we address this issue by testing healthy volunteers who were equally divided in groups with high and low heart rate variability (HRV) during rest, a physiological measure that serves as proxy of ER. Both groups performed an emotional stop-signal task, in which negative high arousing pictures served as negative emotional stimuli and neutral low arousing pictures served as neutral non-emotional stimuli. We found that individuals with high HRV activated and inhibited their responses faster compared to individuals with low HRV, but only in the presence of negative stimuli. No group differences emerged for the neutral stimuli. Thus, individuals with low HRV are more susceptible to the adverse effects of negative emotion on response initiation and inhibition. The present research corroborates the idea that the presentation of emotional stimuli may interfere with inhibition and it also adds to previous research by demonstrating that the aforementioned relationship varies for individuals differing in HRV. We suggest that focusing on individual differences in HRV and its associative ER may shed more light on the dynamic interplay between emotion and cognition

Failures to replicate blocking are surprising and informative : reply to Soto

The blocking effect has inspired numerous associative learning theories and is widely cited in the literature. We recently reported a series of 15 experiments that failed to obtain a blocking effect in rodents. Based on those consistent failures, we claimed that there is a lack of insight into the boundary conditions for blocking. In his commentary, Soto (in press) argues that contemporary associative learning theory does provide a specific boundary condition for the occurrence of blocking, namely the use of same- versus different-modality stimuli. Given that in ten of our 15 experiments same-modality stimuli were used, he claims that our failure to observe a blocking effect is unsurprising. We cannot but disagree with that claim, because of theoretical, empirical, and statistical problems with his analysis. We also address two other possible reasons for a lack of blocking that are referred to in Soto's (in press) analysis, related to generalization and salience, and dissect the potential importance of both. While Soto's (in press) analyses raises a number of interesting points, we see more merit in an empirically guided analysis and call for empirical testing of boundary conditions on blocking