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。     

非条件刺激降低再评估对条件性恐惧消退的影响

诸多情绪障碍治疗的关键在于促进条件性恐惧反应的消退, 研究证明非条件刺激再评估能够引起恐惧反应的变化。本研究将非条件刺激降低再评估范式应用于消退训练, 以主观预期值、皮电反应作为恐惧反应指标, 考察恐惧习得后非条件刺激强度降低对条件性恐惧消退的影响, 并运用评价性条件作用探讨非条件刺激再评估的作用机制。结果表明：在消退阶段, 降低组对条件刺激的皮电反应显著低于控制组。同时评价性条件作用结果显示：经过非条件刺激再评估, 降低组较控制组对条件刺激的评价更为正性。说明非条件刺激降低再评估有效改变条件刺激的负性效价, 降低个体的恐惧反应、促进恐惧消退。     

女性生理周期对条件性恐惧习得和消退的影响

动物研究显示, 雌激素调节条件性恐惧习得和消退, 但是, 人类的性激素对条件性恐惧习得和消退的影响还不太清楚。因此, 本研究以大学生为研究对象, 考察女性不同生理周期对条件性情境恐惧的习得和消退的影响。20名经前期和20名经期女被试暴露于3种情境下：无厌恶刺激情境(N)、可预测情境(P)和不可预测情境(U), 预测此3种情境下是否出现厌恶刺激。以在线索条件下和无线索条件下对厌恶刺激的主观预期值为因变量。研究结果显示:在习得阶段, 经期女性在P情境下的条件性线索恐惧的主观预期值高于经前期女性; 经前期女性在3种情境下的条件性情境恐惧的主观预期值都高于经期女性, 但只在N情境和P情境, 与经期女性相比, 经前期女性对厌恶刺激的主观预期值存在显著差异。在消退阶段, 与经期女性相比, 经前期女性在3种情境下的条件性情境恐惧的主观预期值更高, 且经前期女性对厌恶刺激的主观预期值在N情境和P情境显著高于经期女性。该结果显示, 经前期女性对条件性情境恐惧易习得难消退, 表明此生理阶段的性激素影响大脑的情绪调节功能, 从而影响条件性情境恐惧。     

自悯写作对恐惧消退的促进作用

先前研究表明,自悯干预能够改善焦虑相关精神疾病的心理症状,然而自悯改善焦虑的作用机制尚不清楚。以恐惧消退为基础的暴露疗法是治疗焦虑症的关键疗法,研究自悯干预如何促进恐惧消退从而增强暴露疗法的效果有助于阐释暴露疗法的作用机制。本研究共56名有效健康被试,在恐惧习得之后,将匹配自悯水平和焦虑水平的被试随机分配进行自悯写作或非自悯日常写作,最后进行恐惧消退测试,并通过检测写作前后的正负性情绪变化以及恐惧消退早期、晚期的电击预期反应和皮肤电反应来探究自悯写作对恐惧消退的影响及其作用机制。结果显示,两种写作任务均降低了被试的负性情绪;相比于非自悯日常写作,自悯写作显著降低了被试在恐惧消退早期和晚期的对威胁和安全线索的电击预期反应。相比于消退晚期,自悯组消退早期的皮肤电反应更弱。这一结果表明,自悯写作能够调节对威胁和安全线索的反应来促进恐惧消退。本研究首次运用实验室恐惧消退模型探讨自我怜悯调节威胁刺激的加工机制,有助于解释自悯改善焦虑症状的心理和生理机制,并强调了在基于恐惧消退范式的暴露疗法中增加认知干预的必要性。     

情景变换诱发已消退恐惧记忆重现的神经环路

暴露疗法是治疗创伤后应激障碍的主要行为疗法。当被试反复暴露于可引起恐惧反应的条件刺激(如白噪音), 但却不伴有非条件刺激(如足底电击)时, 恐惧记忆将被消退, 形成消退记忆。但恐惧记忆并未从根本上被擦除, 当被试在消退训练以外的情景暴露于条件刺激时, 已消退的恐惧记忆将会重现。海马、内侧前额叶皮层、杏仁核等脑区及其相互连接的神经环路是情景诱发恐惧记忆重现的生理基础。情景变化诱发恐惧记忆重现过程中, 海马可能是通过直接投射至杏仁核基底核、杏仁核外侧核或通过边缘前皮质间接调控杏仁核基底核、杏仁核外侧核的功能, 产生恐惧反应。     

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。     

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。     

认知重评对负性效价的抑制促进条件性恐惧消退

认知重评能有效降低个体对情感刺激的负性情绪体验, 但指导性认知重评在恐惧记忆治疗中效果存在争议。本文将认知重评范式与辨别式条件恐惧反应范式结合, 以效价和US预期值为指标, 探讨指导性认知重评训练对恐惧情绪习得和消退的影响效果。以低认知重评能力个体为被试, 在实验前24 h进行指导性认知重评训练。条件性恐惧任务为期2天, 第一天完成条件性恐惧的习得和消退任务, 第二天完成条件性恐惧的再消退任务。结果显示, 经过重评训练后个体在条件性恐惧任务中的恐惧情绪效价显著较低, 说明认知重评有效降低低认知重评能力个体在急性应激状态下的负性情绪体验。所有被试均成功完成辨别式条件性恐惧的习得和消退任务, 因此重评训练并不削弱个体对危险或者安全信息的辨别能力。但在条件性恐惧的消退过程中, 认知重评指导训练加快了恐惧消退, 且24 h后测得的条件性恐惧程度显著较低, 说明指导性重评提高了条件性恐惧记忆的消退效率, 并减弱了条件性恐惧的消退返回。     

预期错误在复合恐惧记忆提取消退中的作用

基于记忆再巩固理论的提取消退范式被证明是一种有效和颇有前景的消除不良记忆的方法。本研究将预期错误(Prediction Error, PE)应用于提取消退范式中, 采用多感官复合刺激模型(声音 + 图片)作为条件刺激, 以皮电反应作为恐惧反应指标, 考察在提取阶段不同的预期错误设置(无PE、单个负性PE、单个正性PE和多重PE)对条件性恐惧记忆提取消退效果有何差异。结果表明：无PE组和多重PE组出现了恐惧的自发恢复和重建效应, 而负性PE组和正性PE组均没有出现恐惧的自发恢复和重建效应。说明了在对复合恐惧记忆进行提取消退时, 提取阶段适当的PE才能使记忆进入再巩固过程, 随后传统消退达到抑制恐惧返回效果, 提取阶段没有PE或PE量过多都不能达到恐惧消退效果。     

条件性恐惧提取消退的性别差异

基于记忆再巩固理论的提取消退范式能够有效地削弱非适应性恐惧记忆。性别差异是个体差异性研究的关键变量, 但在提取消退范式的研究中仍然比较少见关于性别差异的探索。因此本研究以立体几何图形作为条件刺激, 腕部电击作为非条件刺激, 皮肤电反应为恐惧反应指标, 探究提取消退范式在恐惧消退效果上是否存在性别差异。结果表明, 在恐惧自发恢复测试中, 提取消退范式的所有被试都成功抑制了恐惧复发, 但恐惧重建测试中只有女性被试抑制了恐惧复发。这说明, 提取消退范式在抑制恐惧自发恢复方面效果显著, 在恐惧重建上女性的消退效果显著优于男性。     

Fear conditioning in posttraumatic stress disorder: evidence for delayed extinction of autonomic, experiential, and behavioural responses

Aversive conditioning has been proposed as an important factor involved in the etiology of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, it is not yet fully understood exactly which learning mechanisms are characteristic for PTSD. PTSD patients (n=36), and healthy individuals with and without trauma exposure (TE group, n=21; nTE group, n=34), underwent a differential fear conditioning experiment consisting of habituation, acquisition, and extinction phases. An electrical stimulus served as the unconditioned stimulus (US), and two neutral pictures as conditioned stimuli (CS+, paired; CS-, unpaired). Conditioned responses were quantified by skin conductance responses (SCRs), subjective ratings of CS valence and US-expectancy, and a behavioural test. In contrast to the nTE group, PTSD patients showed delayed extinction of SCRs to the CS+. Online ratings of valence and US-expectancy as well as the behavioural test confirmed this pattern. These findings point to a deficit in extinction learning and highlight the role of affective valence appraisals and cognitive biases in PTSD. In addition, there was some evidence that a subgroup of PTSD patients had difficulties in learning the CS-US contingency, thereby providing preliminary evidence of reduced discrimination learning.     

When two paradigms meet: Does evaluative learning extinguish in differential fear conditioning?

Contemporary theories of Pavlovian conditioning propose a distinction between signal learning (SL), in which a conditioned stimulus (CS) becomes a predictor for a biologically significant unconditioned stimulus (US), and evaluative learning (EL), in which the valence of the US is transferred to the CS. This distinction is based largely on the different susceptibilities of EL and SL to extinction. This study compared the extinction of indices of EL (online valence ratings) and SL (US-expectancy ratings and skin conductance responses, SCRs) in a differential fear conditioning design using complex CSs. Only half of the participants gave online valence ratings, allowing us to confirm that online valence measurement did not influence SCRs. In line with the distinction between EL and SL, SCRs extinguished rapidly while valence ratings showed resistance to extinction. US-expectancy ratings, however, were not distinguishable from valence ratings indicating that verbal indicators of EL and SL share a similar time course.     

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.     

Return of fear in a human differential conditioning paradigm caused by a return to the original acquistion context

In a differential human fear conditioning paradigm evidence for ABA-renewal was obtained manipulating the lighting in the experimental room. During acquisition in either a dark or illuminated room, one neutral slide was sometimes paired with a loud aversive noise whereas another slide was not. Subsequently, extinction took place in the opposite lighting context. When afterwards the participants were tested again in the original acquisition context, measurements revealed a recovery of the conditioned electrodermal response and an increase in the retrospective verbal US-expectancy ratings. No response recovery was obtained in an AAA-group that received acquisition, extinction and test trials in one and the same context. Several theoretical explanations for this type of return of fear as well as implications for clinical practice are discussed.     

Fear conditioning and extinction in anxiety- and depression-prone persons

Anxiety and depression frequently co-occur and may share similar deficits in the processing of emotional stimuli. High anxiety is associated with a failure in the acquisition and extinction of fear conditioning. Despite the supposed common deficits, no research has been conducted on fear acquisition and extinction in depression. The main aim of the present study was to investigate and compare fear acquisition and extinction in anxiety- and depression-prone participants. Non-clinical anxious, depressive, anxious-depressive and control participants performed a fear discrimination task. During acquisition, the CS+ predicted an aversive event (unconditioned stimulus, US) and the CS? safety (no US). During extinction, the CS+ was no longer followed by the US, rendering it (temporarily) into a safety signal. On each CS participants rated their US expectancy; skin conductance responses (SCRs) were measured throughout. The expectancy scores indicated that high anxiety resulted in less safety learning during acquisition and extinction; no effect of depression was observed. SCRs showed that high-anxiety persons displayed less discrimination learning (CS+ minus CS?) during acquisition than low-anxiety persons. During extinction, high-depression persons demonstrated more discriminative SCR than low-depression persons. The observed discrepancies in response patterns of high-anxiety and -depression persons seem to indicate distinctive information processing of emotional stimuli.     

Return of experimentally induced chocolate craving after extinction in a different context: divergence between craving for and expecting to eat chocolate

Unlike in fear conditioning, little attention has been devoted to extinction and renewal in appetitive conditioning, despite its relevance for extinction-based addiction treatments. We developed a paradigm, using a specific tray as a conditioned stimulus (CS) for eating chocolate (unconditioned stimulus, US), to investigate the effects of context change on acquisition and extinction of conditioned chocolate craving using an ABA renewal design. In Study 1 (n=32), participants successfully acquired chocolate craving, but unlike what is commonly observed in fear conditioning, craving did not extinguish. In Study 2, we separately assessed craving and US expectancy in a between-subjects design (n=64). US-expectancy data showed acquisition, extinction and renewal in the ABA group. The craving data did not follow this pattern, suggesting different mechanisms for craving and US expectancy. Similarities and differences between craving and US expectancy, as well as practical implications, are discussed.     

Associative learning versus fear habituation as predictors of long-term extinction retention

Violation of unconditioned stimulus (US) expectancy during extinction training may enhance associative learning and result in improved long-term extinction retention compared to within-session habituation. This experiment examines variation in US expectancy (i.e., expectancy violation) as a predictor of long-term extinction retention. It also examines within-session habituation of fear-potentiated startle (electromyography, EMG) and fear of conditioned stimuli (CS) throughout extinction training as predictors of extinction retention. Participants (n?=?63) underwent fear conditioning, extinction and retention and provided continuous ratings of US expectancy and EMG, as well as CS fear ratings before and after each phase. Variation in US expectancy throughout extinction and habituation of EMG and fear was entered into a regression as predictors of retention and reinstatement of levels of expectancy and fear. Greater variation in US expectancy throughout extinction training was significantly predictive of enhanced extinction performance measured at retention test, although not after reinstatement test. Slope of EMG and CS fear during extinction did not predict retention of extinction. Within-session habituation of EMG and self-reported fear is not sufficient for long-term retention of extinction learning, and models emphasizing expectation violation may result in enhanced outcomes.     

Reinstatement of fear in humans: autonomic and experiential responses in a differential conditioning paradigm

The present study investigated reinstatement of fear in humans using an aversive differential conditioning paradigm. Two neutral human face pictures were presented during habituation, acquisition, extinction, and postreinstatement phases. One picture served as a conditioned stimulus (CS) reinforced by an unconditioned stimulus (US) in the form of electrical stimulation (CS+) and the second picture as a control stimulus that was never reinforced (CS-). The prediction that in a reinstatement manipulation a previously extinguished fear response in humans can be reinstated in a reinstatement group by the mere presentation of three unpredicted electrical stimulations (USs) was tested. Participants in the control group were not exposed to unpredicted USs and no reinstatement effect was expected. Outcome measures included subjective US expectancy ratings and skin conductance responses. Results showed non-selective return of the fear response due to fear recovery associated with both CSs (CS+/CS-) in the reinstatement group. Unexpected fear recovery was observed for both CSs (CS+/CS-) in control participants. Results are discussed with respect to context conditioning, fear generalisation, and anxiety-related cognitive mechanisms underlying fear recovery after extinction.