状态焦虑对条件性恐惧泛化的影响

恐惧的过度泛化是焦虑障碍患者重要的潜在病因,探索焦虑对恐惧泛化的影响具有重要意义。本研究在恐惧习得后,通过恐惧创伤电影范式诱发状态焦虑组被试的焦虑水平,采用主观预期值和皮电反应值作为指标,考察状态焦虑对条件性恐惧泛化的影响。结果表明,恐惧创伤电影范式显著提高了状态焦虑组被试的焦虑水平。在泛化阶段,状态焦虑组被试表现出更强的恐惧泛化,对与条件刺激相似的泛化刺激表现出更强烈的恐惧以及更高的预期。状态焦虑使得被试恐惧泛化的消退更慢,持续时间更长。研究同时发现,在状态焦虑下,被试对条件刺激的辨识出现增强趋势。研究结果提示在对经历负性事件个体进行临床干预时,可通过降低其焦虑水平来减少过度泛化。     

他人在场抑制条件性恐惧泛化

本研究采用经典的知觉辨别恐惧条件反射范式,将主观电击预期和皮肤电反应作为主要指标,考察他人在场对恐惧习得过程和恐惧泛化程度的影响。结果发现,恐惧习得过程未出现显著的组间差异。在恐惧泛化上,他人在场抑制了恐惧泛化水平,表现为皮肤电泛化水平更低、泛化梯度更广。研究初步证明,他人在场可能会分散个体的注意资源,降低个体的知觉辨别能力,进而抑制恐惧泛化。因此,他人在场在临床上对情绪障碍,特别是恐惧和焦虑相关障碍群体的干预作用值得重视。     

基于知觉的恐惧泛化的认知神经机制

恐惧泛化是条件性恐惧反应转移到另一个相似但安全的刺激的现象。适当的恐惧泛化对人类有积极意义, 而过度的恐惧泛化则不利于个体有效地适应环境。基于知觉的恐惧泛化研究揭示了恐惧泛化的规律, 因而被广泛应用。本文首先梳理了对知觉恐惧泛化的相关研究, 介绍恐惧泛化的经典理论基础—巴普洛夫条件反射以及恐惧泛化梯度; 其次简要回顾基于多个感觉通道(即视觉、听觉、情景)的知觉恐惧泛化研究现状; 再次, 分别对海马、杏仁核、脑岛和前额叶等脑区在恐惧泛化中的作用进行回顾, 进一步总结出恐惧泛化的神经环路结构模型。最后, 简要区分了基于知觉的恐惧泛化和正在兴起的基于概念的恐惧泛化, 进而指出未来研究需要结合基于概念的恐惧泛化、区分被试对刺激的辨别力、增加恐惧刺激材料的准确性及多样化、结合激素等个体差异和多模态脑成像数据来展开。     

疼痛恐惧的形成及其对疼痛知觉的影响

脑岛、杏仁核是疼痛恐惧形成的重要神经网络中心。疼痛恐惧增强了慢性疼痛患者的疼痛知觉体验, 进而加剧抑郁、焦虑情绪和功能损伤程度。脑岛、杏仁核、前额皮层和前扣带回是疼痛恐惧影响疼痛知觉的重要神经基础。通过认知方法干预疼痛恐惧可以改善患者的抑郁、焦虑情绪, 减少功能损伤。未来研究应拓展疼痛恐惧的测量工具, 采用功能磁共振成像技术进一步揭示疼痛恐惧影响慢性疼痛患者疼痛知觉的神经机制。     

条件性恐惧泛化的性别差异

恐惧的过度泛化是焦虑障碍的核心症状之一, 表现为患者对与原危险刺激极不相似的中性刺激也有着较高强度的恐惧反应。临床上, 女性比男性更有可能患焦虑障碍, 因而对恐惧泛化进行性别差异研究可以为解释女性有着更高焦虑障碍发病率提供新的角度, 同时为临床治疗提供参考。本研究采用辨别性条件恐惧范式, 以主观预期值和皮电反应值作为测量指标, 从行为和生理两个层面对条件性恐惧泛化程度和恐惧泛化消退的性别差异进行研究。结果发现, 在恐惧泛化程度上, 未出现显著性别差异。在恐惧泛化消退上, 在主观预期值和皮电反应值两个层面均有着显著性别差异, 具体表现为相较于男性, 女性恐惧泛化的消退更慢, 持续时间更长。研究结果表明, 女性焦虑障碍高发病率的潜在影响因素之一可能在于女性对于恐惧泛化刺激的难以消除。     

睡眠对恐惧学习的影响及其认知神经机制

睡眠问题可能会诱发恐惧相关情绪障碍(焦虑、创伤性应激障碍、恐怖症等),研究睡眠影响恐惧学习的认知神经机制,有助于增强对恐惧相关情绪障碍的预测、诊断和治疗。以往研究表明睡眠剥夺影响恐惧习得和消退主要是通过抑制vmPFC活动,阻碍其与杏仁核的功能连接,从而导致恐惧习得增强或是消退学习受损。进一步研究发现睡眠不同阶段对恐惧学习相关脑区有独特的影响:剥夺(缺乏)快速眼动睡眠会抑制vmPFC活动、增强杏仁核、海马激活,导致恐惧习得增强,消退学习受损,此外边缘皮层的功能连接减少破坏了记忆巩固(恐惧记忆和消退记忆);而慢波睡眠主要与海马变化有关,慢波睡眠期间进行目标记忆重激活可促进恐惧消退学习。未来研究需要增加睡眠影响恐惧泛化的神经机制研究、及昼夜节律中断对恐惧消退的影响,以及关注动物睡眠研究向人类睡眠研究转化中存在的问题。     

催产素影响条件化恐惧情绪加工的认知机制及神经基础

恐惧是一种与进化密切相关的情绪,对人类的生存与适应具有重要价值。过度的恐惧可能会导致恐惧症、焦虑症和创伤后应激障碍等病理性恐惧的产生。而催产素对各种病理性恐惧的干预和治疗具有重要的价值。因此,研究拟采用行为和fMRI技术,系统探究催产素影响条件化恐惧情绪加工的认知神经机制。重点关注:(1)催产素影响恐惧习得的认知神经机制;(2)催产素影响恐惧记忆巩固的认知神经机制;(3)催产素影响恐惧记忆再巩固的认知神经机制;(4)催产素影响恐惧消退的认知神经机制。这项研究的开展对于探究催产素影响条件化恐惧情绪加工的认知神经机制具有很高的科学价值,对于各种病理性恐惧的干预与治疗也具有重要的应用价值。     

急性应激对威胁刺激注意定向和注意解除的影响:认知神经机制研究

急性应激和注意偏向是焦虑障碍和创伤后应激障碍发生和症状保持的两个重要因素。急性应激导致交感神经系统激活以及儿茶酚胺和糖皮质激素分泌增加,因而影响对威胁刺激的注意偏向。但是急性应激如何影响注意偏向中的注意定向和注意解除尚不清楚。本项目采用点探测任务、威胁线索空间提示任务,结合恐惧条件反射、眼动和事件相关电位技术,研究急性应激对注意定向和注意解除影响的认知神经机制。研究结果可为治疗焦虑和创伤后应激障碍提供支持,为公共卫生管理政策的制定提供建议。     

恐惧学习的发展认知神经机制研究回顾与展望

恐惧可以帮助个体快速地评估危险情景,并调动生理和行为反应来应对危险刺激。恐惧发展始于婴儿时期,神经回路表现为杏仁核未参与恐惧反应,但杏仁核功能连接可以预测早期恐惧反应;发展到童年期的恐惧学习特点为安全学习不足和过度泛化,其根源是负责辨别刺激的海马还处于发育中;进入青春期恐惧加工主要特征是由于前额叶发育较晚导致的消退能力弱。恐惧虽有益于人类生存,但恐惧异常会引发焦虑障碍,本文从恐惧的习得、消退和泛化三个阶段,对比了焦虑与健康青少年的恐惧学习差异。最后,文章从增加婴儿时期研究、创新青少年恐惧研究范式和开发安全有效的干预手段三个方面对未来研究提出展望,以期进一步推动恐惧研究的发展。     

积极情绪对条件性恐惧泛化的抑制作用

恐惧的过度泛化是焦虑障碍的核心症状之一,表现为患者对与原危险刺激极不相似的安全刺激也产生恐惧反应。本研究采用经典条件恐惧范式,以US主观预期、回溯性恐惧评定、回溯性效价评定和皮电反应作为恐惧反应的指标,通过"最好自我"训练来诱发被试的积极情绪,考察了恐惧习得后的积极情绪对于恐惧泛化的影响。本研究发现,积极情绪能有效地抑制条件性恐惧的泛化,增强被试对安全信号的学习,并对消退后的恐惧重建现象起到预防作用。研究同时显示,恐惧泛化在主观评定指标和生理指标间出现了分离,这表明积极情绪对恐惧泛化的抑制作用是一个综合的过程,可能涉及到不同的作用机制。本研究结果提示可以通过诱发积极情绪,抑制条件性恐惧的泛化,对临床干预有一定的启发意义。     

Pavlovian Disgust Conditioning and Generalization: Specificity and Associations With Individual Differences

Although studies have identified differences between fear and disgust conditioning, much less is known about the generalization of conditioned disgust. This is an important gap in the literature given that overgeneralization of conditioned disgust to neutral stimuli may have clinical implications. To address this knowledge gap, female participants (n = 80) completed a Pavlovian conditioning procedure in which one neutral food item (conditioned stimulus; CS+) was followed by disgusting videos of individuals vomiting (unconditioned stimulus; US) and another neutral food item (CS–) was not reinforced with the disgusting video. Following this acquisition phase, there was an extinction phase in which both CSs were presented unreinforced. Importantly, participants also evaluated generalization stimuli (GS+, GS?) that resembled, but were distinct from, the CS after each conditioning phase. As predicted, the CS+ was rated as significantly more disgusting and fear inducing than the CS? after acquisition and this pattern persisted after extinction. However, disgust ratings of the CS+ after acquisition were significantly larger than fear ratings. Participants also rated the GS+ as significantly more disgusting, but not fear inducing, than the GS? after acquisition. However, this effect was not observed after extinction. Disgust proneness did predict a greater increase in disgust and fear ratings of the CS+ relative to the CS? after acquisition and extinction. In contrast, trait anxiety predicted only higher fear ratings to the CS+ relative to the CS? after acquisition and extinction. Disgust proneness nor trait anxiety predicted the greater increase in disgust to the GS+ relative to the GS? after acquisition. These findings suggest that while conditioned disgust can generalize, individual difference variables that predict generalization remain unclear. The implications of these findings for disorders of disgust are discussed.     

Contribution of Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex to the Acquisition and Extinction of Conditioned Fear in Rats

The ventrolateral, agranular insular portion of prefrontal cortex (PFC) in rats is involved in visceral functions and has been shown to be involved in emotional processes. However, its contribution to aversive learning has not been well defined. Classical fear conditioning has been a powerful tool for illuminating some of the primary neural structures involved in aversive emotional learning. We measured both the acquisition and the extinction of conditioned fear following lesions of the ventrolateral PFC of rats. Lesions reduced fear reactivity to contextual stimuli associated with conditioning without affecting CS acquisition, and had no effect on response extinction. Ventrolateral PFC may normally be involved in the processing of contextual information while not being directly involved in extinction processes within the aversive domain.     

Measuring the role of conditioning and stimulus generalisation in common fears and worries

Common and persistent fears may emerge through learning mechanisms such as fear conditioning and generalisation. Although there have been extensive studies of these learning processes in healthy but also psychiatric samples, many of the tasks used to produce conditioning and assess generalisation either use painful and aversive stimuli as the unconditioned stimuli (UCS), or suffer from poor belongingness between the conditioned stimuli and the UCS. Here, we present novel data from a paradigm designed to examine fear conditioning and generalisation in healthy individuals. Two female faces served as conditioned threat cue (CS+) and conditioned safety cue (CS?) respectively. The CS+ was paired repeatedly with a fearful, screaming face (unconditioned stimulus). Generalisation included intermediate faces which varied in their similarity to the CS+ and CS?. We measured eyeblink startle reflex and self-reported ratings. Acquired fear of the CS+ generalised to intermediate stimuli in proportion to their perceptual similarity to the CS+. Our findings demonstrate how fears of new individuals may develop based on resemblance to others with whom an individual has had negative experiences. The paradigm offers new opportunities for probing the role of generalisation in the emergence of common and persistent fears.     

Brain activity associated with omission of an aversive event reveals the effects of fear learning and generalization

During fear learning, anticipation of an impending aversive stimulus increases defensive behaviors. Interestingly, omission of the aversive stimulus often produces another response around the time the event was expected. This omission response suggests that the subject detected a mismatch between what was predicted and what actually occurred, thereby providing an indirect measure of cognitive expectancy. Here, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging to investigate whether omission-related brain activity reflects fear expectancy during learning and generalization of conditioned fear. During conditioning, a face expressing a moderate amount of fear (conditioned stimulus, CS+) signaled delivery of an aversive shock unconditioned stimulus (US), whereas the same face with a neutral expression was unreinforced. In a subsequent generalization test, subjects were presented with faces expressing more or less fear intensity than the CS+. Psychophysiological results revealed an increase in the skin conductance response (SCR) during learning when the US was omitted. Omission-related SCRs were also observed during the generalization test following the offset of high- but not low-intensity face expressions. Neuroimaging results revealed omission-related neural activity during learning in the anterior cingulate cortex, parietal cortex, insula, and striatum. These same regions also showed omission-related responses during the generalization test following highly expressive fearful faces. Finally, regression analysis on omission responses during the generalization test revealed correlations in offset-related SCRs and neural activity in the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex and posterior parietal cortex. Thus, converging psychophysiological and neural activity upon omission of aversive stimulation provides a novel metric of US expectancy, even to generalized cues that had no prior history of reinforcement.     

Attention control: Relationships between self-report and behavioural measures,and symptoms of anxiety and depression

Previous research has demonstrated differences in processing between fear-relevant stimuli, such as snakes and spiders, and non-fear-relevant stimuli. The current research examined whether non-fear-relevant animal stimuli, such as dogs, birds and fish, were processed like fear-relevant stimuli following aversive learning. Pictures of a priori fear-relevant animals, snakes and spiders, were evaluated as negative in affective priming and ratings and were preferentially attended to in a visual search task. Pictures of dogs, birds and fish that had been trained as CS+ in an aversive conditioning design were evaluated more negatively and facilitated dot probe detection relative to CS? pictures. The current studies demonstrated that stimuli viewed as positive prior to aversive learning were negative and were preferentially attended to after a brief learning episode. We propose that aversive learning may provide a mechanism for the acquisition of stimulus fear relevance.     

Fear Develops to the Conditioned Stimulus and to the Context during Classical Eyeblink Conditioning in Rats

In classical eyeblink conditioning, non-specific emotional responses to the aversive shock unconditioned stimulus (US), which are presumed to coincide with the development of fear, occur early in conditioning and precede the emergence of eyeblink responses. This two-process learning model was examined by concurrently measuring fear and eyeblink conditioning in the freely moving rat. Freezing served as an index of fear in animals and was measured during the inter-trial intervals in the training context and during a tone conditioned stimulus (CS) presented in a novel context. Animals that received CS-US pairings exhibited elevated levels of fear to the context and CS early in training that decreased over sessions, while eyeblink conditioned responses (CRs) developed gradually during acquisition and decreased during extinction. Random CS-US presentations produced a similar pattern of fear responses to the context and CS as paired presentations despite low eyeblink CR percentages, indicating that fear responding was decreased independent of high levels of learned eyeblink responding. The results of paired training were consistent with two-process models of conditioning that postulate that early emotional responding facilitates subsequent motor learning, but measures from random control animals demonstrate that partial CS-US contingencies produce decrements in fear despite low levels of eyeblink CRs. These findings suggest a relationship between CS-US contingency and fear levels during eyeblink conditioning, and may serve to clarify further the role that fear conditioning plays in this simple paradigm.     

Fear develops to the conditioned stimulus and to the context during classical eyeblink conditioning in rats

In classical eyeblink conditioning, non-specific emotional responses to the aversive shock unconditioned stimulus (US), which are presumed to coincide with the development of fear, occur early in conditioning and precede the emergence of eyeblink responses. This twoprocess learning model was examined by concurrently measuring fear and eyeblink conditioning in the freely moving rat. Freezing served as an index of fear in animals and was measured during the inter-trial intervals in the training context and during a tone conditioned stimulus (CS) presented in a novel context. Animals that received CS-US pairings exhibited elevated levels of fear to the context and CS early in training that decreased over sessions, while eyeblink conditioned responses (CRs) developed gradually during acquisition and decreased during extinction. Random CS-US presentations produced a similar pattern of fear responses to the context and CS as paired presentations despite low eyeblink CR percentages, indicating that fear responding was decreased independent of high levels of learned eyeblink responding The results of paired training were consistent with two-process models of conditioning that postulate that early emotional responding facilitates subsequent motor learning, but measures from random control animals demonstrate that partial CS-US contingencies produce decrements in fear despite low levels of eyeblink CRs. These findings suggest, a relationship between CS-US contingency and fear levels during eyeblink conditioning, and may serve to clarify further the role that fear conditioning plays in this simple paradigm.     

Generalization of conditioned fear along a dimension of increasing fear intensity

The present study investigated the extent to which fear generalization in humans is determined by the amount of fear intensity in nonconditioned stimuli relative to a perceptually similar conditioned stimulus. Stimuli consisted of graded emotionally expressive faces of the same identity morphed between neutral and fearful endpoints. Two experimental groups underwent discriminative fear conditioning between a face stimulus of 55% fear intensity (conditioned stimulus, CS+), reinforced with an electric shock, and a second stimulus that was unreinforced (CS−). In Experiment 1 the CS− was a relatively neutral face stimulus, while in Experiment 2 the CS− was the most fear-intense stimulus. Before and following fear conditioning, skin conductance responses (SCR) were recorded to different morph values along the neutral-to-fear dimension. Both experimental groups showed gradients of generalization following fear conditioning that increased with the fear intensity of the stimulus. In Experiment 1 a peak shift in SCRs extended to the most fear-intense stimulus. In contrast, generalization to the most fear-intense stimulus was reduced in Experiment 2, suggesting that discriminative fear learning procedures can attenuate fear generalization. Together, the findings indicate that fear generalization is broadly tuned and sensitive to the amount of fear intensity in nonconditioned stimuli, but that fear generalization can come under stimulus control. These results reveal a novel form of fear generalization in humans that is not merely based on physical similarity to a conditioned exemplar, and may have implications for understanding generalization processes in anxiety disorders characterized by heightened sensitivity to nonthreatening stimuli.Fear generalization occurs when a fear response acquired to a particular stimulus transfers to another stimulus. Generalization is often an adaptive function that allows an organism to rapidly respond to novel stimuli that are related in some way to a previously learned stimulus. Fear generalization, however, can be maladaptive when nonthreatening stimuli are inappropriately treated as harmful, based on similarity to a known threat. For example, an individual may acquire fear of all dogs after an aversive experience with a single vicious dog. In this case, recognizing that a novel animal is related to a feared (or fear-conditioned) animal is made possible in part by shared physical features to the fear exemplar, such as four legs and a tail. On the other hand, fear generalization may be selective for those features that are associated with natural categories of threat; a harmless dog may not pose a threat, but possesses naturally threatening features common to other threatening animals, such as sharp teeth and claws. Moreover, the degree to which an individual fearful of dogs responds with fear may be related to either the physical similarity to the originally feared animal (e.g., from a threatening black dog to another black dog), or the intensity of those threatening features relative to the originally feared animal (e.g., sharp teeth from one animal to sharp teeth of another animal). Therefore, fear generalization based on perceptual information may occur via two routes—similarity to a learned fear exemplar along nonthreatening physical dimensions or along dimensions of fear relevance. Given that fear generalization often emerges as a consequence of conditioning or observational learning, it is important to determine which characteristics of novel stimuli facilitate fear generalization and the extent to which generalization processes can be controlled.Early explanations of stimulus generalization emphasized that an organism''s ability to generalize to nonconditioned stimuli is related to both the similarity and discriminability to a previously conditioned stimulus (CS) (Hull 1943; Lashley and Wade 1946). While Lashley and Wade (1946) argued that generalization was simply a failure of discriminating between a nonconditioned stimulus (CS−) and the reinforced CS (CS+), contemporary views contend that generalization enables learning to extend to stimuli that are readily perceptually distinguished from the CS (Pearce 1987; Shepard 1987; McLaren and Mackintosh 2002). This latter view has been supported by empirical studies of stimulus generalization in laboratory animals (Guttman and Kalish 1956; Honig and Urcuioli 1981). In these studies, animals were reinforced for responding to a CS of a specific physical quality such as color, and then tested with several different values along the same stimulus dimension as the CS (e.g., at various wavelengths along the color spectrum). Orderly gradients of responses are often reported that peak at or near the reinforced value and decrease as a function of physical similarity to the CS along the stimulus dimension (Honig and Urcuioli 1981). Further generalization was shown to extend from the CS+ to discriminable nonconditioned stimuli, suggesting that generalization is not bound to the organism''s ability to discriminate stimuli (Guttman and Kalish 1956, 1958; Shepard 1987).Interestingly, when animals learn to distinguish between a CS+ and a CS−, the peak of behavioral responses often shift to a new value along the dimension that is further away from the CS− (Hanson 1959). For instance, when being trained to discriminate a green CS+ and an orange CS−, pigeons will key peck more to a greenish-blue color than the actual CS+ hue. Intradimensional generalization of this sort is reduced when animals are trained to discriminate between two or more stimulus values that are relatively close during conditioning (e.g., discriminating a green-yellow CS+ from a green-blue CS−), suggesting that the extent of generalization can come under stimulus control through reinforcement learning (Jenkins and Harrison 1962). Spence (1937) described the transposition of response magnitude as an effect of interacting gradients of excitation and inhibition formed around the CS+ and CS−, respectively, which summate to shift responses to values further from the inhibitory CS− gradient. In all, early theoretical and empirical treatments of stimulus generalization in nonhuman animals revealed that behavior transfers to stimuli that are physically similar, but can be discriminated from a CS, and that differential reinforcement training can both sharpen the stimulus gradient and shift the peak of responses to a nonreinforced value.Although this rich literature has revealed principles of generalization in nonhuman animals, few studies of fear generalization have been conducted in humans (for review, see Honig and Urcuioli 1981; Ghirlanda and Enquist 2003). Moreover, the existing human studies have yet to consider the second route through which fear responses may generalize—via gradients of fear relevance. While a wide range of neutral stimuli, such as tones or geometric figures, can acquire fear relevance through conditioning processes, other stimuli, such as threatening faces or spiders, are biologically prepared to be fear relevant (Lanzetta and Orr 1980; Dimberg and Öhman 1996; Whalen et al. 1998; Öhman and Mineka 2001). Compared with fear-irrelevant CSs, biologically prepared stimuli capture attention (Öhman et al. 2001), are conditioned without awareness (Öhman et al. 1995; Öhman and Soares 1998), increase brain activity in visual and emotional processing regions (Sabatinelli et al. 2005), and become more resistant to extinction when paired with an aversive unconditioned stimulus (US) (Öhman et al. 1975). Although the qualitative nature of the CS influences acquisition and expression of conditioned fear, it is unknown how generalization proceeds along a gradient of natural threat. For instance, human studies to date have all tested variations of a CS along physically neutral stimulus dimensions, such as tone frequency (Hovland 1937), geometric shape (Vervliet et al. 2006), and physical size (Lissek et al. 2008). These investigations implicitly assume that the generalization gradient is independent of the conditioned value (equipotentiality principle). In other words, since the stimuli are all equally neutral prior to fear learning, fear generalization operates solely as a function of similarity along the reinforced physical dimension. However, since fear learning is predisposed toward fear-relevant stimuli, generalization may be selective to those shared features between a CS+ and CS− that are associated with natural categories of threat. Examining generalization using fear-relevant stimuli is thus important to gain better ecological validity and to develop a model system for studying maladaptive fear generalization in individuals who may express exaggerated fear responses to nonthreatening stimuli following a highly charged aversive experience (i.e., post-traumatic stress disorder or specific phobias).To address this issue, the present study examined generalization to fearful faces along an intradimensional gradient of fear intensity. A fearful face is considered a biologically prepared stimulus that recruits sensory systems automatically for rapid motor responses (Öhman and Mineka 2001), and detecting fearful faces may be evolutionarily selected as an adaptive response to social signals of impending danger (Lanzetta and Orr 1980; Dimberg and Öhman 1996). During conditioning, an ambiguous face containing 55% fear intensity (CS+) was paired with an electric shock US, while a relatively neutral face (11% fear intensity) was explicitly unreinforced (CS−) (Experiment 1). Skin conductance responses (SCR) were recorded as a dependent measure of fear conditioning. Before and following fear conditioning, SCRs were recorded in response to face morphs of the same actor expressing several values of increasing fear intensity (from 11% to 100%; see Fig. 1). A total of five values along the continuum were used: 11% fear/88% neutral, 33% fear/66% neutral, 55% fear/44% neutral, 77% fear/22% neutral, and 100% fear. For clarity, these stimuli are herein after labeled as S1, S2, S3, S4, and S5, respectively.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Experimental design. (A) Pre-conditioning included six presentations of all five stimulus values without the US. (B) Fear conditioning involved discriminative fear learning between the S3, paired with the US (CS+), and either the unreinforced S1 (Experiment 1) or the unreinforced S5 (Experiment 2) (CS−). (C) The generalization test included nine presentations of all five stimuli (45 total), with three out of nine S3 trials reinforced with the US. Stimuli are not drawn to scale.Testing generalization along an intradimensional gradient of emotional expression intensity allows for an examination of the relative contributions of fear intensity and physical similarity on the magnitude of generalized fear responses. If fear generalization is determined purely by the perceptual overlap between the CS+ and other morph values, without regard to fear intensity, then we would expect a bell-shaped generalization function with the maximum SCR centered on the reinforced (intermediate) CS+ value (S3), less responding to the directly adjacent, but most perceptually similar values (S2 and S4), and the least amount of responding to the most distal and least perceptually similar morph values (S1 and S5). This finding would be in line with stimulus generalization reported along fear-irrelevant dimensions (Lissek et al. 2008) and in stimulus generalization studies using appetitive instrumental learning procedures (Guttman and Kalish 1956). If, however, fear generalization is biased toward nonconditioned stimuli of high fear intensity, then an asymmetric generalization function should result with maximal responding to the most fear-intense nonconditioned stimuli. This finding would suggest that fear generalization is selective to the degree of fear intensity in stimuli, similar to studies of physical intensity generalization gradients in nonhuman animals (Ghirlanda and Enquist 2003). We predicted that the latter effect would be observed, such that the magnitude of SCRs will disproportionately generalize to stimuli possessing a greater degree of fear intensity than the CS+ (Experiment 1). A secondary goal was to determine whether fear generalization to nonconditioned stimuli can be reduced through discriminative fear learning processes. Therefore, a second group of participants was run for whom the CS− was the 100% fearful face (Experiment 2). In this case, we predicted that discriminative fear conditioning between the CS+ (55% intensity) and the most fear-intense nonconditioned stimulus would sharpen the generalization gradient around the reinforced CS+ value, and that responses to the most fear-intense stimulus would decrease relative to Experiment 1. Moreover, this discriminative fear-learning process may provide evidence that fear generalization is influenced by associative learning processes and is not exclusively driven by selective sensitization to stimuli of high fear relevance (Lovibond et al. 1993). Finally, we were interested to discover whether generalization processes would yield subsequent false memory for the intensity of the CS+ in a post-experimental retrospective report. In sum, the present study has implications for understanding how fear generalization is related to the degree of fear intensity of a nonconditioned stimulus, the extent to which discrimination training efforts can thwart the generalization process, and how fear generalization affects stimulus recognition.     

Instructed fear learning,extinction, and recall: additive effects of cognitive information on emotional learning of fear

The effects of instruction on learning of fear and safety are rarely studied. We aimed to examine the effects of cognitive information and experience on fear learning. Fourty healthy participants, randomly assigned to three groups, went through fear conditioning, extinction learning, and extinction recall with two conditioned stimuli (CS+). Information was presented about the presence or absence of conditioned stimulus–unconditioned stimulus (CS–US) contingency at different stages of the experiment. Information about the CS–US contingency prior to fear conditioning enhanced fear response and reduced extinction recall. Information about the absence of CS–US contingency promoted extinction learning and recall, while omission of this information prior to recall resulted in fear renewal. These findings indicate that contingency information can facilitate fear expression during fear learning, and can facilitate extinction learning and recall. Information seems to function as an element of the larger context in which conditioning occurs.