Startle potentiation is a well-validated translational measure of negative affect. Startle potent... more Startle potentiation is a well-validated translational measure of negative affect. Startle potentiation is widely used in clinical and affective science, and there are multiple approaches for its quantification. The three most commonly used approaches quantify startle potentiation as the increase in startle response from a neutral to threat condition based on (1) raw potentiation, (2) standardized potentiation, or (3) percent-change potentiation. These three quantification approaches may yield qualitatively different conclusions about effects of independent variables (IVs) on affect when within-or between-group differences exist for startle response in the neutral condition. Accordingly, we directly compared these quantification approaches in a shock-threat task using four IVs known to influence startle response in the no-threat condition: probe intensity, time (i.e., habituation), alcohol administration, and individual differences in general startle reactivity measured at baseline. We confirmed the expected effects of time, alcohol, and general startle reactivity on affect using self-reported fear/anxiety as a criterion. The percent-change approach displayed apparent artifact across all four IVs, which raises substantial concerns about its validity. Both raw and standardized potentiation approaches were stable across probe intensity and time, which supports their validity. However, only raw potentiation displayed effects that were consistent with a priori specifications and/or the self-report criterion for the effects of alcohol and general startle reactivity. Supplemental analyses of reliability and validity for each approach provided additional evidence in support of raw potentiation.
People often prefer familiar stimuli, presumably because familiarity signals safety. This prefere... more People often prefer familiar stimuli, presumably because familiarity signals safety. This preference can occur with merely repeated old stimuli, but it is most robust with new but highly familiar prototypes of a known category (beauty-in-averageness effect). However, is familiarity always warm? Tuning accounts of mood hold that positive mood signals a safe environment, whereas negative mood signals an unsafe environment. Thus, the value of familiarity should depend on mood. We show that compared with a sad mood, a happy mood eliminates the preference for familiar stimuli, as shown in measures of self-reported liking and physiological measures of affect (electromyographic indicator of spontaneous smiling). The basic effect of exposure on preference and its modulation by mood were most robust for prototypes (category averages). All this occurs even though prototypes might be more familiar in a happy mood. We conclude that mood changes the hedonic implications of familiarity cues.
The role of the hippocampus in memory is commonly investigated by comparing fear conditioning par... more The role of the hippocampus in memory is commonly investigated by comparing fear conditioning paradigms that differ in their reliance on the hippocampus. For example, the dorsal (septal) portion of the hippocampus is involved in trace, but not delay fear conditioning, two Pavlovian paradigms in which only the relative timing of stimulus presentation is varied. However, a growing literature implicates the ventral (temporal) portion of the hippocampus in the expression of fear, irrespective of prior training. The current experiments evaluated the relative contributions of the dorsal and ventral portions of the hippocampus to trace fear conditioning specifically vs. the expression of conditioned fear in general. Lesions restricted to the dorsal hippocampus blocked acquisition of trace fear conditioning. Larger lesions, also including an adjacent portion of the ventral hippocampus, were required to impair retrieval of trace fear conditioning. Delay fear conditioning was not disrupted in either case. In contrast, lesions that encompassed almost the entire dorsal and ventral hippocampus disrupted expression of both trace and delay fear conditioning. The current data suggest distinct roles in fear conditioning for three regions of the hippocampus: the septal zone is required for acquisition of trace fear conditioning, a larger portion of the hippocampus is critical for memory retrieval, and a region including the temporal zone is required for expression of both trace and delay fear conditioning. These findings are consistent with evidence suggesting the neuroanatomical and functional segregation of the hippocampus into three zones along its septal-temporal axis. V V C 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Startle potentiation is a well-validated translational measure of negative affect. Startle potent... more Startle potentiation is a well-validated translational measure of negative affect. Startle potentiation is widely used in clinical and affective science, and there are multiple approaches for its quantification. The three most commonly used approaches quantify startle potentiation as the increase in startle response from a neutral to threat condition based on (1) raw potentiation, (2) standardized potentiation, or (3) percent-change potentiation. These three quantification approaches may yield qualitatively different conclusions about effects of independent variables (IVs) on affect when within- or between-group differences exist for startle response in the neutral condition. Accordingly, we directly compared these quantification approaches in a shock-threat task using four IVs known to influence startle response in the no-threat condition: probe intensity, time (i.e., habituation), alcohol administration, and individual differences in general startle reactivity measured at baseline. We confirmed the expected effects of time, alcohol, and general startle reactivity on affect using self-reported fear/anxiety as a criterion. The percent-change approach displayed apparent artifact across all four IVs, which raises substantial concerns about its validity. Both raw and standardized potentiation approaches were stable across probe intensity and time, which supports their validity. However, only raw potentiation displayed effects that were consistent with a priori specifications and/or the self-report criterion for the effects of alcohol and general startle reactivity. Supplemental analyses of reliability and validity for each approach provided additional evidence in support of raw potentiation.
Startle potentiation is a well-validated translational measure of negative affect. Startle potent... more Startle potentiation is a well-validated translational measure of negative affect. Startle potentiation is widely used in clinical and affective science, and there are multiple approaches for its quantification. The three most commonly used approaches quantify startle potentiation as the increase in startle response from a neutral to threat condition based on (1) raw potentiation, (2) standardized potentiation, or (3) percent-change potentiation. These three quantification approaches may yield qualitatively different conclusions about effects of independent variables (IVs) on affect when within-or between-group differences exist for startle response in the neutral condition. Accordingly, we directly compared these quantification approaches in a shock-threat task using four IVs known to influence startle response in the no-threat condition: probe intensity, time (i.e., habituation), alcohol administration, and individual differences in general startle reactivity measured at baseline. We confirmed the expected effects of time, alcohol, and general startle reactivity on affect using self-reported fear/anxiety as a criterion. The percent-change approach displayed apparent artifact across all four IVs, which raises substantial concerns about its validity. Both raw and standardized potentiation approaches were stable across probe intensity and time, which supports their validity. However, only raw potentiation displayed effects that were consistent with a priori specifications and/or the self-report criterion for the effects of alcohol and general startle reactivity. Supplemental analyses of reliability and validity for each approach provided additional evidence in support of raw potentiation.
People often prefer familiar stimuli, presumably because familiarity signals safety. This prefere... more People often prefer familiar stimuli, presumably because familiarity signals safety. This preference can occur with merely repeated old stimuli, but it is most robust with new but highly familiar prototypes of a known category (beauty-in-averageness effect). However, is familiarity always warm? Tuning accounts of mood hold that positive mood signals a safe environment, whereas negative mood signals an unsafe environment. Thus, the value of familiarity should depend on mood. We show that compared with a sad mood, a happy mood eliminates the preference for familiar stimuli, as shown in measures of self-reported liking and physiological measures of affect (electromyographic indicator of spontaneous smiling). The basic effect of exposure on preference and its modulation by mood were most robust for prototypes (category averages). All this occurs even though prototypes might be more familiar in a happy mood. We conclude that mood changes the hedonic implications of familiarity cues.
The role of the hippocampus in memory is commonly investigated by comparing fear conditioning par... more The role of the hippocampus in memory is commonly investigated by comparing fear conditioning paradigms that differ in their reliance on the hippocampus. For example, the dorsal (septal) portion of the hippocampus is involved in trace, but not delay fear conditioning, two Pavlovian paradigms in which only the relative timing of stimulus presentation is varied. However, a growing literature implicates the ventral (temporal) portion of the hippocampus in the expression of fear, irrespective of prior training. The current experiments evaluated the relative contributions of the dorsal and ventral portions of the hippocampus to trace fear conditioning specifically vs. the expression of conditioned fear in general. Lesions restricted to the dorsal hippocampus blocked acquisition of trace fear conditioning. Larger lesions, also including an adjacent portion of the ventral hippocampus, were required to impair retrieval of trace fear conditioning. Delay fear conditioning was not disrupted in either case. In contrast, lesions that encompassed almost the entire dorsal and ventral hippocampus disrupted expression of both trace and delay fear conditioning. The current data suggest distinct roles in fear conditioning for three regions of the hippocampus: the septal zone is required for acquisition of trace fear conditioning, a larger portion of the hippocampus is critical for memory retrieval, and a region including the temporal zone is required for expression of both trace and delay fear conditioning. These findings are consistent with evidence suggesting the neuroanatomical and functional segregation of the hippocampus into three zones along its septal-temporal axis. V V C 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Startle potentiation is a well-validated translational measure of negative affect. Startle potent... more Startle potentiation is a well-validated translational measure of negative affect. Startle potentiation is widely used in clinical and affective science, and there are multiple approaches for its quantification. The three most commonly used approaches quantify startle potentiation as the increase in startle response from a neutral to threat condition based on (1) raw potentiation, (2) standardized potentiation, or (3) percent-change potentiation. These three quantification approaches may yield qualitatively different conclusions about effects of independent variables (IVs) on affect when within- or between-group differences exist for startle response in the neutral condition. Accordingly, we directly compared these quantification approaches in a shock-threat task using four IVs known to influence startle response in the no-threat condition: probe intensity, time (i.e., habituation), alcohol administration, and individual differences in general startle reactivity measured at baseline. We confirmed the expected effects of time, alcohol, and general startle reactivity on affect using self-reported fear/anxiety as a criterion. The percent-change approach displayed apparent artifact across all four IVs, which raises substantial concerns about its validity. Both raw and standardized potentiation approaches were stable across probe intensity and time, which supports their validity. However, only raw potentiation displayed effects that were consistent with a priori specifications and/or the self-report criterion for the effects of alcohol and general startle reactivity. Supplemental analyses of reliability and validity for each approach provided additional evidence in support of raw potentiation.
Uploads
Papers by Mark Starr