The neuropsychology of fear learning and fear regulation

Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 2014

There is conflicting evidence as to whether awareness is required for conditioning of the skin conductance response (SCR). Recently, Schultz and Helmstetter (2010) reported SCR conditioning in contingency unaware participants by using difficult to discriminate stimuli. These findings are in stark contrast with other observations in human fear conditioning research, showing that SCR predominantly reflects contingency learning. Therefore, we repeated the study by Schultz and Helmstetter and additionally measured conditioning of the startle response, which seems to be less sensitive to declarative knowledge than SCR. While we solely observed SCR conditioning in participants who reported awareness of the contingencies (n = 16) and not in the unaware participants (n = 18), we observed startle conditioning irrespective of awareness. We conclude that SCR but not startle conditioning depends on conscious discriminative fear learning.

Biological Psychiatry, 2002

The aim of this article is to review studies on human anxiety using the startle reflex methodology and to apply the literature on context conditioning in rats to interpret the results. A distinction is made between cued fear (as in specific phobia), a phasic response to an explicit threat cue, and anxiety, a more sustained and future-oriented response not linked to a specific discrete cue. Experimentally, contextual fear, as opposed to cued fear, may best reflect the feeling of aversive expectation about potential future dangers that characterizes anxiety. Following a brief description of the neurobiology of cued fear and context conditioning, evidence is presented showing that anxious patients are overly sensitive to threatening contexts. It is then argued that the degree to which contextual fear is prompted by threat depends on whether the danger is predictable or unpredictable. Consistent with animal data, unpredictable shocks in humans result in greater context conditioning compared to predictable shocks. Because conditioning promotes predictability, it is proposed to use conditioning procedures to study the development of appropriate and inappropriate aversive expectations. Cued fear learning is seen as an adaptive process by which undifferentiated fear becomes cue-specific. Deficits in cued fear learning lead to the development of nonadaptive aversive expectancies and an attentional bias toward generalized threat. Lacking a cue for threat, the organism cannot identify periods of danger and safety and remains in a chronic state of anxiety. Factors that may affect conditioning are discussed.

Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 1993

Animal data suggest that shock sensitization as well as aversive learning potentiates the acoustic startle reflex. The present experiment tested, whether this shock sensitization also occurs in human subjects and whether it precedes aversive conditioning. Sixty subjects viewed-prior to conditioning-a series of slides of different emotional contents including the to be conditioned stimuli (CSs). Afterwards, the experimenter attached the shock electrodes and initiated shock exposure. Then, subjects were randomly assigned to view a series of two slides, each for eight acquisition trials in which one slide was followed by a shock. Subsequently, extinction trials (12 for each slide) were administered. During preconditioning, acquisition, and extinction, startle probes occurred unpredictably during and between slide viewing. Preconditioning data replicated previous results by Lang and his associates, showing that the startle response magnitude is directly related to the affective valence induced by the slides. Shock exposure strongly facilitated the startle reflex magnitude. This shock sensitization was absent for the skin conductance response. Course of lcarning also varied for both response systems. The data suggest that startle reflex potentiation indexes the acquisition of an avoidance disposition, which is preceded by a general sensitization of the protective reflexes. Skin conductance learning follows arousal changes and is modulated by cognitive processes.

Implicit extinction, 2018

INTRODUCTION: It has long been posited that threat learning operates and forms under an affective and a cognitive learning system that is supported by different brain circuits. A primary drawback in exposure-based therapies is the high rate of relapse that occurs when higher order areas fail to inhibit responses driven by the defensive circuit. It has been shown that implicit exposure of fearful stimuli leads to a long-lasting reduction in avoidance behavior in patients with phobia. Despite the potential benefits of this approach in the treatment of phobias and posttraumatic stress disorder, implicit extinction is still underinvestigated. Methods: Two groups of healthy participants were threat conditioned. The following day, extinction training was conducted using a stereoscope. One group of participants was explicitly exposed with the threat‐conditioned image, while the other group was implicitly exposed using a continuous flash suppression (CFS) technique. On the third day, we tested the spontaneous recovery of defensive responses using explicit presentations of the images. Results: On the third day, we found that only the implicit extinction group showed reduced spontaneous recovery of defensive responses to the threat‐conditioned stimulus, measured by threat‐potentiated startle responses but not by the electro-dermal activity. Conclusion: Our results suggest that implicit extinction using CFS might facilitate the modulation of the effective component of fearful memories, attenuating its expression after 24 hr. The limitations of the CFS technique using threatful stimuli urge the development of new strategies to improve implicit presentations and circumvent such limitations. Our study encourages further investigations of implicit extinction as a potential therapeutic target to further advance exposure‐based psychotherapy.

Behavioral Neuroscience, 2008

This study explored the time course of conditioned fear response expression. Two neutral male facial expressions served as conditioned stimuli (CS) in a differential trace conditioning that involved either an aversive (n ϭ 14) or a nonaversive (n ϭ 12) unconditioned stimulus (UCS) in a between-subjects design. Skin conductance response (SCR) to the CSs and startle response magnitudes to acoustic probes presented at early (250 ms) or late (1,750 ms) probe times after CS onset were measured. As expected, conditioned SCR discrimination was observed in both aversive and nonaversive learning, whereas the conditioned potentiation of the startle response was only observed for the aversive UCS condition. Interestingly, conditioned startle discrimination was specific for the later probe time. In contrast, conditioned fear potentiation of the startle response at the early probe time was equally pronounced for CSϩ and CSϪ. These findings suggest that fear-eliciting neural structures are rapidly activated in fear learning, whereas the expression of inhibitory conditioning requires more time, presumably reflecting the involvement of cortical top-down control processes.

Learning & Memory, 2006

The purpose of this study was to analyze fear extinction and reinstatement in humans using fear-potentiated startle. Participants were fear conditioned using a simple discrimination procedure with colored lights as the conditioned stimuli (CSs) and an airblast to the throat as the unconditioned stimulus (US). Participants were extinguished 24 h after fear conditioning. Upon presentation of unsignaled USs after extinction, participants displayed significant fear reinstatement. In summary, these procedures produced robust fear-potentiated startle, significant CS+/CS− discrimination, within-session extinction, and significant reinstatement. This is the first demonstration of fear extinction and reinstatement in humans using startle measures.

Animal Learning & Behavior, 1990

Cognitive Affective Behavioral Neuroscience, 2004

In Pavlovian fear conditioning, a neutral stimulus (conditional stimulus, or CS), usually a light or tone, is typically paired with an aversive stimulus (unconditional stimulus, or UCS) such as an electric shock. Animals learn that the CS predicts the UCS as the stimuli are repeatedly paired, and this learning is manifested as changes in behavioral and autonomic responses (Rescorla, 1988). Presentation of the CS alone provokes the expression of a conditional fear response once learning has occurred. The thalamus, hippocampus, and sensory cortex each contribute to conditional response (CR) acquisition, and the amygdala is a principal site of CS-UCS convergence and critical synaptic plasticity

Psychophysiology, 2007

The present study explored fear acquisition in differential delay versus trace conditioning in regard to the potential role of the acquired contingency awareness. One of two neutral pictures (CS1) either coterminated with (delay group; n 5 32) or was followed by the aversive unconditioned stimulus (UCS) after CS offset (trace group; n 5 32), while startle blink and skin conductance responses (SCR) were measured. As expected, the acquisition of conditioned startle potentiation in delay conditioning was independent of contingency awareness. In contrast, fear-potentiated startle in trace conditioning was only observed for those participants who were aware of the CS-UCS contingencies. SCR conditioning was generally only obtained for aware participants. The present results suggest a more implicit learning process in delay fear conditioning, whereas the explicit acquisition of contingency awareness might be a prerequisite for trace fear conditioning.

Behaviour Research and Therapy, 2008

Though generalization of conditioned fear has been implicated as a central feature of pathological anxiety, surprisingly little is known about the psychobiology of this learning phenomenon in humans. Whereas animal work has frequently applied methods to examine generalization gradients to study the gradual weakening of the conditioned-fear response as the test stimulus increasingly differs from the conditioned stimulus (CS), to our knowledge no psychobiological studies of such gradients have been conducted in humans over the last 40 years. The current effort validates an updated generalization paradigm incorporating more recent methods for the objective measurement of anxiety (fear-potentiated startle). The paradigm employs 10, quasi-randomly presented, rings of graduallyincreasing size with extremes serving as CS+ and CS-. The eight rings of intermediary size serve as generalization stimuli (GS's) and create a continuum-of-similarity from CS+ to CS-. Both startle data and online self-report ratings demonstrate continuous decreases in generalization as the presented stimulus becomes less similar to the CS+. The current paradigm represents an updated and efficacious tool with which to study fear generalization-a central, yet understudied conditioningcorrelate of pathologic anxiety.