Potentiation of the startle reflex is in line with contingency reversal instructions rather than the conditioning history

In the context of fear conditioning, different psychophysiological measures have been related to different learning processes. Specifically, skin conductance responses (SCRs) have been related to cognitive expectancy learning, while fear potentiated startle (FPS) has been proposed to reflect affective learning that operates according to simple associative learning principles. On the basis of this two level account of fear conditioning we predicted that FPS should be less affected by verbal instructions and more affected by direct experience than SCRs. We tested this hypothesis by informing participants that contingencies would be reversed after a differential conditioning phase. Our results indicate that contingency reversal instructions led to an immediate and complete reversal of FPS regardless of the previous conditioning history. This change was accompanied by similar changes on US expectancy ratings and SCRs. These results conform with an expectancy model of fear conditioning but argue against a two level account of fear conditioning

State anxiety modulates the return of fear

Current treatments for anxiety disorders are effective but limited by the high frequency of clinical relapse. Processes underlying relapse are thought to be experimentally modeled in fear conditioning experiments with return fear (ROF) inductions. Thereby reinstatement-induced ROF might be considered a model to study mechanisms underlying adversity-induced relapse. Previous studies have reported differential ROF (i.e. specific for the danger stimulus) but also generalized ROF (i.e. for safe and danger stimuli), but reasons for these divergent findings are not clear yet. Hence, the response pattern (i.e. differential or generalized) following reinstatement may be of importance for the prediction of risk or resilience for ROF. The aim of this study was to investigate state anxiety as a potential individual difference factor contributing to differentiability or generalization of return of fear. Thirty-six participants underwent instructed fear expression, extinction and ROF induction through reinstatement while physiological (skin conductance response, fear potentiated startle) and subjective measures of fear and US expectancy were acquired. Our data show that, as expected, high state anxious individuals show deficits in SCR discrimination between dangerous and safe cues after reinstatement induced ROF (i.e. generalization) as compared to low state anxious individuals. The ability to maintain discrimination under aversive circumstances is negatively associated with pathological anxiety and predictive of resilient responding while excessive generalization is a hallmark of anxiety disorders. Therefore, we suggest that experimentally induced ROF might prove useful in predicting relapse risk in clinical settings and might have implications for possible interventions for relapse prevention

The contextual malleability of approach-avoidance training effects : approaching or avoiding fear conditioned stimuli modulates effects of approach-avoidance training

Previous research showed that the repeated approaching of one stimulus and avoiding of another stimulus typically leads to more positive evaluations of the former stimuli. In the current study, we examined whether approach and avoidance training (AAT) effects on evaluations of neutral stimuli can be modulated by introducing a regularity between the approach-avoidance actions and a positive or negative (feared) stimulus. In an AAT task, participants repeatedly approached one neutral non-word and avoided another neutral non-word. Half of the participants also approached a negative fear-conditioned stimulus (CS+) and avoided a conditioned safe stimulus (CS−). The other half of the participants avoided the CS+ and approached the CS−. Whereas participants in the avoid CS+ condition exhibited a typical AAT effect, participants in the approach CS+ condition exhibited a reversed AAT effect (i.e. they evaluated the approached neutral non-word as more negative than the avoided non-word). These findings provide evidence for the malleability of the AAT effect when strongly valenced stimuli are approached or avoided. We discuss the practical and theoretical implications of our findings.© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Grou

The effectiveness of dual-task interventions for modulating emotional memories in the laboratory:A meta-analysis

Persistent emotional memories and intrusive mental images can be weakened by executing a demanding dual-task during recollection of those images and memories. According to working memory (WM) theories, such dual-task interventions are effective because they limit the amount of cognitive resources available for the processing of emotional memories. However, there is still ongoing debate about the extent to which and under what conditions dual-task interventions are effective to interfere with emotional memories. In the current meta-analysis, we assessed k = 44 laboratory experiments investigating the effects of dual-task interventions on negative and positive memories. The effect was measured with the raw mean reduction in vividness and emotionality self-report ratings of emotional memories before compared to after the intervention on 100-point rating scales. Results showed that the dual-task interventions made both negative and positive memories less vivid (mean reduction negative images = 10.83, 95% CI = [8.15, 13.52]; mean reduction positive images = 12.48, 95% CI = [6.73, 15.39]) and less emotional (mean reduction negative images = 11.34, 95% CI = [7.38, 15.30]; mean reduction positive images = 5.35, 95% CI = [2.15, 8.54]). Several moderators were tested and are discussed in the light of WM theories

Fear expression and return of fear following threat instruction with or without direct contingency experience

Prior research showed that mere instructions about the contingency between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an unconditioned stimulus (US) can generate fear reactions to the CS. Little is known, however, about the extent to which actual CS US contingency experience adds anything beyond the effect of contingency instructions. Our results extend previous studies on this topic in that it included fear potentiated startle as an additional dependent variable and examined return of fear (ROF) following reinstatement. We observed that CS US pairings can enhance fear reactions beyond the effect of contingency instructions. Moreover, for all measures of fear, instructions elicited immediate fear reactions that could not be completely overridden by subsequent situational safety information. Finally, ROF following reinstatement for instructed CS+s was unaffected by actual experience. In summary, our results demonstrate the power of contingency instructions and reveal the additional impact of actual experience of CS US pairings

Instructed fear stimuli bias visual attention

We investigated whether stimuli merely instructed to be fear-relevant can bias visual attention, even when the fear relation was never experienced before. Participants performed a dot-probe task with pictures of naturally fear-relevant (snake or spider) or -irrelevant (bird or butterfly) stimuli. Instructions indicated that two pictures (one naturally fear-relevant and one fear-irrelevant) could be followed by an electrical stimulation (i.e., instructed fear). In reality, no stimulation was administered. During the task, two pictures were presented on each side of the screen, after which participants had to determine as fast as possible on which side a black dot appeared. After a first phase, fear was reinstated by instructing participants that the device was not connected but now was (reinstatement phase). Participants were faster when the dot appeared on a location where an instructed fear picture was presented. This effect seemed independent of whether picture content was naturally fear-relevant, but was only found in the first half of each phase, suggesting rapid extinction due to the absence of stimulation, and rapid re-evaluation after reinstatement. A second experiment similarly showed that instructed fear biases attention, even when participants were explicitly instructed that no stimulation would be given during the dot-probe task. Together, these findings demonstrate that attention can be biased towards instructed fear stimuli, even when these fear relations were never experienced. Future studies should test whether this is specific to fear, or can be observed for all instructions that change the relevance of a given stimulus

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

A systematic review of pliance, tracking, and augmenting

A