Fear-potentiated Startle Reflex Research Articles

The influence of acoustic startle probes on fear learning in humans

Even though human fear-conditioning involves affective learning as well as expectancy learning, most studies assess only one of the two distinct processes. Commonly used read-outs of associative fear learning are the fear-potentiated startle reflex (FPS), pupil dilation and US-expectancy ratings. FPS is thought to reflect the affective aspect of fear learning, while pupil dilation reflects a general arousal response. However, in order to measure FPS, aversively loud acoustic probes are presented during conditioning, which might in itself exert an effect on fear learning. Here we tested the effect of startle probes on fear learning by comparing brain activation (fMRI), pupil dilation and US-expectancy ratings with and without acoustic startle probes within subjects. Regardless of startle probes, fear conditioning resulted in enhanced dACC, insula and ventral striatum activation. Interaction analyses showed that startle probes diminished differential pupil dilation between CS+ and CS− due to increased pupil responses to CS−. A trend significant interaction effect was observed for US-expectancy and amygdala activation. Startle probes affect differential fear learning by impeding safety learning, as measured with pupil dilation, a read-out of the cognitive component of fear learning. However, we observed no significant effect of acoustic startle probes on other measures of fear learning.

S24. The Influence of Acoustic Startle Probes on Fear Learning in Humans

Even though human fear-conditioning involves affective learning as well as expectancy learning, most studies assess only one of the two distinct processes. Commonly used read-outs of associative fear learning are fear-potentiated startle reflex (FPS), pupil dilation and self-reported anxiety. A clear asset of FPS is that it reflects the affective aspect of fear learning, while pupil dilation reflects a general arousal response. However, in order to measure FPS, aversively loud acoustic probes are presented during conditioning, which might in itself exert an effect on fear learning.

Beyond Extinction: Prolonged Conditioning and Repeated Threat Exposure Abolish Contextual Renewal of Fear-Potentiated Startle Discrimination but Leave Expectancy Ratings Intact.

Extinction treatments decrease fear via repeated exposures to the conditioned stimulus (CS) and are associated with a return of fear. Alternatively, fear can be reduced via reductions in the perceived intensity of the unconditioned stimulus (US), e.g., through repeated exposures to the US. Promisingly, the few available studies show that repeated US exposures outperform standard extinction. US exposure treatments can decrease fear via two routes: (1) by weakening the CS–US association (extinction-like mechanism), and/or (2) by weakening the subjective US aversiveness (habituation-like mechanism). The current study further investigated the conditions under which US exposure treatment may reduce renewal, by adding a group in which CS–US pairings continued following fear acquisition. During acquisition, participants learned that one of two visual stimuli (CS+/CS−) predicted the occurrence of an aversive electrocutaneous stimulus (US). Next, the background context changed and participants received one of three interventions: repeated CS exposures, (2) repeated US exposures, or (3) continued CS–US pairings. Following repeated CS exposures, test presentations of the CSs in the original conditioning context revealed intact CS+/CS− differentiation in the fear-potentiated startle reflex, while the differentiation was abolished in the other two groups. Differential US expectancy ratings, on the other hand, were intact in all groups. Skin conductance data were inconclusive because standard context renewal following CS exposures did not occur. Unexpectedly, there was no evidence for a habituation-like process having taken place during US exposures or continued CS–US pairings. The results provide further evidence that US exposures outperform the standard extinction treatment and show that effects are similar when US exposures are part of CS–US pairings.

P.3.020 - The influence of acoustic startle probes on fear learning in humans

Introduction While two distinct processes take place during fear-conditioning, - i.e., affective learning and expectancy learning - most studies use only a single read-out of associative fear memory. In affective learning the aversive valence of the unconditioned stimulus (US) is transferred to the conditioned stimulus (CS), while in expectancy learning the CS becomes a predictor of the US on a cognitive level. According to the dual process theory of fear learning, separate systems are involved in the formation and expression of the emotional and cognitive aspects of fear learning and these processes can occur independent of each other [1]. Commonly used read-outs of associative fear learning are the fear-potentiated startle reflex, pupil dilation and US-expectancy ratings. A clear asset of the fear-potentiated startle is that it reflects the affective aspect of fear learning, while pupil dilation reflects a general arousal response [2]. This makes fear-potentiated startle the preferred measure when studying the emotional aspects of fear learning. However, in order to measure fear-potentiated startle, aversively loud acoustic probes are presented during conditioning, which might in itself exert an effect on fear learning. Methods Here we tested the effect of startle probes on fear learning by comparing brain activation, measured with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), pupil dilation and retrospective US-expectancy ratings with and without acoustic startle probes within subjects. Participants 26 volunteers participated in the experiment. 10 participants were excluded from (part of) the analyses. Remaining samples consisted of 16 participants for pupil dilation and 18 for MRI and US-expectancy. Pupil dilation and US-expectancy ratings We compared pre‐exposure pupil dilation and US-expectancy (trials 1-3) to late fear-conditioning acquisition (trials 10-16). To examine fear acquisition, we analyzed the differential increase in responding. Then, we assessed the effect of acoustic startle probes on physiological and behavioral (i.e., pupil dilation, US‐expectancy ratings) fear learning. fMRI Voxel-wise statistical tests were family-wise error rate corrected for multiple comparisons (p Results Unfortunately, fear-potentiated startle signal could not be distinguished from MRI-scanning artefacts and could therefore not be analyzed. Regardless of startle probes, fear conditioning resulted in enhanced dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, insula and ventral striatum activation. Interaction analyses showed that startle probes diminished differential pupil dilation between CS+ and CS- due to increased pupil responses to CS-. A trend significant interaction effect was observed for US-expectancy and amygdala activation. Conclusions The increased pupil response to the CS- suggests that startle probes might affect fear learning in a counterintuitive way: instead of enhancing fear learning it reduced discriminative fear learning by increasing arousal to the CS-.

Impact of parental catastrophizing and contextual threat on parents’ emotional and behavioral responses to their child’s pain

Limited research has addressed processes underlying parents’ empathic responses to their child’s pain. The present study investigated the effects of parental catastrophizing, threatening information about the child’s pain, and child pain expression upon parental emotional and behavioral responses to their child’s pain. A total of 56 school children participated in a heat pain task consisting of 48 trials while being observed by 1 of their parents. Trials were preceded by a blue or yellow circle, signaling possible pain stimulation (i.e., pain signal) or no pain stimulation (i.e., safety signal). Parents received either neutral or threatening information regarding the heat stimulus. Parents’ negative emotional responses when anticipating their child’s pain were assessed using psychophysiological measures— i.e., fear-potentiated startle and corrugator EMG activity. Parental behavioral response to their child’s pain (i.e., pain attending talk) was assessed during a 3-minute parent–child interaction that followed the pain task. The Child Facial Coding System (CFCS) was used to assess children’s facial pain expression during the pain task. Results indicated that receiving threatening information was associated with a stronger parental corrugator EMG activity during pain signals in comparison with safety signals. The same pattern was found for parental fear-potentiated startle reflex, particularly when the child’s facial pain expression was high. In addition, parents who reported high levels of catastrophizing thought about their child’s pain engaged, in comparison with low-catastrophizing parents, in more pain-attending talk when they received threatening information. The findings are discussed in the context of affective-motivational theories of pain.

The emotional control of action: ERP evidence.

It is known that unpleasant emotions can modulate the speed of involuntary movements, yet the effects of aversive stimulation on voluntary motor acts have not been systematically investigated. The effects of aversive stimulation on subsequent movement-related cortical activity were examined using a task invalving compatible and incompatible movements. Negative shifts in the timing of two motor event-related potentials were found subsequent to aversive stimulation for compatible movements only. With analogy to the Fear-Potentiated Startle Reflex, a reactive mechanism affecting covert action, these Fear-Potentiated Movement-Related Potentials (FPMPs) reflect preparation for overt actions performed to cope with particular types of danger. Further analysis revealed a positive deflection in the left frontal cortex prior the execution of incompatible movements, which may reflect inhibitory suppression of externally-triggered imitative tendencies.

Neurotoxic lesions of the dorsal and ventral hippocampus impair acquisition and expression of trace-conditioned fear-potentiated startle in rats

Pavlovian delay conditioning, in which a conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (US) co-terminate, is thought to reflect non-declarative memory. In contrast, trace conditioning, in which the CS and US are temporally separate, is thought to reflect declarative memory. Hippocampal lesions impair acquisition and expression of trace conditioning measured by the conditioned freezing and eyeblink responses, while having little effect on the acquisition of delay conditioning. Recent evidence suggests that lesions of the ventral hippocampus (VH) impair conditioned fear under conditions in which dorsal hippocampal (DH) lesions have little effect. In the present study, we examined the time-course of fear expression after delay and trace conditioning using the fear-potentiated startle (FPS) reflex, and the effects of pre- and post-training lesions to the VH and DH on trace-conditioned FPS. We found that both delay- and trace-conditioned rats displayed significant FPS near the end of the CS relative to the unpaired control group. In contrast, trace-conditioned rats displayed significant FPS throughout the duration of the trace interval, whereas FPS decayed rapidly to baseline after CS offset in delay-conditioned rats. In experiment 2, both DH and VH lesions were found to significantly reduce the overall magnitude of FPS compared to the control group, however, no differences were found between the DH and VH groups. These findings support a role for both the DH and VH in trace fear conditioning, and suggest that the greater effect of VH lesions on conditioned fear might be specific to certain measures of fear.

Disruption of contextual freezing, but not contextual blocking of fear-potentiated startle, after lesions of the dorsal hippocampus.

The role of the dorsal hippocampus in contextual fear conditioning was investigated with a contextual blocking paradigm. In Experiment 1, rats were given pairings of a light conditioned stimulus (CS) and footshock after preexposure either to footshock or to the context alone. The group preexposed to footshock showed poorer fear conditioning to the light CS, as measured by the fear-potentiated startle reflex. In Experiment 2, a group preexposed to footshock in the same context showed poorer fear conditioning to the light CS than did a group preexposed to footshock in a different context, indicating contextual blocking of fear-potentiated startle. In Experiment 3, lesions of the dorsal hippocampus had no effect on contextual blocking, even though contextual freezing was disrupted. The sparing of contextual blocking indicated that contextual memory was intact following hippocampal lesions, despite the disruption of contextual freezing.

Disruption of contextual freezing, but not contextual blocking of fear-potentiated startle, after lesions of the dorsal hippocampus.

The role of the dorsal hippocampus in contextual fear conditioning was investigated with a contextual blocking paradigm. In Experiment 1, rats were given pairings of a light conditioned stimulus (CS) and footshock after preexposure either to footshock or to the context alone. The group preexposed to footshock showed poorer fear conditioning to the light CS, as measured by the fear-potentiated startle reflex. In Experiment 2, a group preexposed to footshock in the same context showed poorer fear conditioning to the light CS than did a group preexposed to footshock in a different context, indicating contextual blocking of fear-potentiated startle. In Experiment 3, lesions of the dorsal hippocampus had no effect on contextual blocking, even though contextual freezing was disrupted. The sparing of contextual blocking indicated that contextual memory was intact following hippocampal lesions, despite the disruption of contextual freezing.

Acoustic startle and anticipatory anxiety in humans: Effects of monaural right and left ear stimulation

The startle reflex elicited by binaural acoustic startle stimuli is potentiated by the threat of electric shock. The present study explored the lateralization of this fear-potentiated startle reflex effect using acoustic startle stimuli delivered binaurally or monaurally to the left or right ear and recorded from the left and right orbicularis oculi muscles. Consistent with previous results, the acoustic startle to binaural stimulation was potentiated during the anticipation of shock. This effect was also present for monaural stimulation but was greater when startle stimuli were delivered to the right than to the left ear. The results are discussed in terms of hemispheric lateralization during shock anticipation.

Safety signals and human anxiety: a fear-potentiated startle study.

The effect of a safety signal on the magnitude of anticipatory anxiety was investigated using the fear-potentiated startle reflex paradigm in humans. The amplitude of the acoustic startle reflex was measured during the anticipation of unpleasant electric shocks ("threat") and during "safe" conditions. Threat and safe conditions were signaled by three different colored lights. Two lights signaled safe conditions (safe 1, safe 2) and the other light signaled the threat condition (threat). In phase I, the lights alternated, each presentation consisting of one colored light. In phase II, the lights were presented alone or in the two combinations of safe 1 (or safe 2) + threat and safe 1 + safe 2. In both phases, the contingency between the lights and the shock was explained to the subjects. It was emphasized that no shock could be administered when the safe 1 and threat light were simultaneously presented in phase II. Subjects' belief and understanding of the instructions were verified. In Phase I, startle was increased in the threat-alone compared to the safe-alone condition, reflecting increased anticipatory anxiety in the threat-alone condition. In phase II, startle in the safe + threat condition was smaller than in the threat-alone condition, but was larger than in the safe + threat. These results were interpreted as suggesting that the threat signal was still able to elicit anticipatory anxiety despite the fact that it was no longer associated with a threat.

Fear‐Potentiated Startle in Humans: Effects of Anticipatory Anxiety on the Acoustic Blink Reflex

The effects of fear/anticipatory anxiety on the acoustic startle reflex were investigated in humans using a paradigm involving anticipation of electric shocks. The eyeblink component of the startle reflex, elicited by an abrupt auditory stimulus, was measured in 9 normal volunteers during either the anticipation of electric shocks (anticipatory anxiety) or periods in which no shocks were anticipated (safe period). The eyeblink was consistently higher in amplitude, and shorter in latency, during periods when the subjects anticipated shocks, compared to the safe periods. This effect could not be attributed solely to a reduction in habituation and was statistically significant before the subjects actually received any shock (a single 30 mA stimulation on the median nerve). These results indicate that anticipatory anxiety can be measured objectively in humans using the fear-potentiated startle reflex in a paradigm not actually requiring any shock. Because a great deal is known about the neuroanatomical and pharmacological mechanisms of fear-potentiated startle in laboratory animals, this test procedure may be especially useful in humans to investigate the neurobiological substrates of anxiety disorders and their pharmacological treatments.

The fear-potentiated startle reflex as a measure of fear onset and offset : Christian Grillon, Ph.D., Rezvan Ameli, Ph.D., Michael Davis, Ph.D. Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510-3223

The fear-potentiated startle reflex as a measure of fear onset and offset : Christian Grillon, Ph.D., Rezvan Ameli, Ph.D., Michael Davis, Ph.D. Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510-3223