Demographic factors predict magnitude of conditioned fear

Rosenbaum, Blake L.; Bui, Éric; Marin, Marie‐France; Holt, Daphne J.; Lasko, Natasha B.; Pitman, Roger K.; Orr, Scott P.; Milad, Mohammed R.

doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2015.06.010

Cited by 15 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Demographic predictors of SCR conditioning.-We conducted a series of logistic regression analyses to examine the significance of demographic predictors identified in previous studies (Rosenbaum et al, 2015;Kredlow et al, 2017). The dependent variable was the dichotomous outcome of acquiring or not acquiring a differential SCR during acquisition.…”

Section: Statistical Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This makes subject recruitment more difficult and limits representativeness of samples. Acquisition of conditioned fear responses can vary as a function of participant characteristics, with evidence for significantly decreased conditioned differential SCR among those with less education (Rosenbaum et al, 2015). Race is an additional factor, as lower rates of conditioned SCRs have been observed for African American, compared to non-African American, participants (Kredlow et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the current study, we examine whether previously identified demographic factors (Rosenbaum et al, 2015;Kredlow et al, 2017) would predict failure to acquire a differential conditioned SCR and whether enhancing the UCS by combining it with a secondary UCS or increasing its duration would influence acquisition of a differential conditioned SCR. We hypothesized that using a compound UCS and lengthening the UCS duration would both increase the acquisition of differential conditioned SCRs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Who is studied in de novo fear conditioning paradigms? An examination of demographic and stimulus characteristics predicting fear learning

Kredlow

Orr

Otto

2018

International Journal of Psychophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A common challenge in fear conditioning studies is that a relatively large proportion of individuals fail to acquire a differential conditioned skin conductance response (SCR). Researchers have identified demographic factors associated with poorer fear learning and explored the use of different fear conditioning paradigms across various populations. However, few studies have strategically aimed to enhance acquisition by manipulating the unconditioned stimulus (UCS). In the current manuscript, we examined whether demographic factors predicted failure to condition (n = 274) and explored whether modifications to the UCS enhanced fear learning (n = 143). Results indicated that race, but not age, education, or gender, predicted failure to condition. Stepwise logistic regression demonstrated that race was the most influential of these predictors; African Americans were less likely to acquire a conditioned SCR, compared to non-African Americans. Also, use of a compound UCS (i.e., electric shock combined with a scream noise) led to nearly double the rate of acquisition of a conditioned SCR. Hence, use of a compound UCS may provide a way to reduce the number of excluded individuals in studies of fear-conditioned SCR and thereby improve the representativeness of research samples.

show abstract

Section: Statistical Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Who is studied in de novo fear conditioning paradigms? An examination of demographic and stimulus characteristics predicting fear learning

Kredlow

Orr

Otto

2018

International Journal of Psychophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As an example, van Well and colleagues (2012) found differences in the activations of the dorsal ACC (dACC) and amygdala to be associated with individual differences in startle potentiation. Importantly, other factors such as sex (Lebron-Milad et al, 2012;Milad et al, 2006Milad et al, , 2010Rosenbaum et al, 2015), gonadal hormones (Merz et al, 2012;Milad et al, 2006), education (Rosenbaum et al, 2015), age (Bellebaum & Daum, 2004;Rosenbaum et al, 2015), ethnicity (Martínez, Franco-Chaves, Milad, & Quirk, 2014;Nelson, Bishop, Sarapas, Kittles, & Shankman, 2014), personality traits (Otto et al, 2007), and genetic factors (Åhs, Frick, Furmark, & Fredrikson, 2014;Hettema, Annas, Neale, Kendler, & Fredrikson, 2003;Hindi Attar, Finckh, & Büchel, 2012;Klucken et al, 2014;Lonsdorf et al, 2009;Merrill, Steinmetz, Viken, & Rose, 1999;Wendt et al, 2015) have also been shown to modulate conditionability. Importantly, it is common for fear conditioning studies to exclude participants due to poor evidence of a conditioned SCR (Chauret et al, 2014;Milad, Orr, Pitman, & Rauch, 2005;Oyarzún et al, 2012;Phelps, Delgado, Nearing, & LeDoux, 2004;Spring et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Absence of conditioned responding in humans: A bad measure or individual differences?

Marin

Barbey²,

Rosenbaum

et al. 2019

Psychophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Skin conductance response (SCR) is often used as an index of conditioned fear. SCR has been shown to be highly variable, and absence of SC reactivity is sometimes used as criteria for excluding data. It is, however, possible that low or no SC reactivity is the result of a distinct biological signature that underlies individual differences in SCR reactivity. This study examined neural correlates associated with the near absence of SCR conditionability. Archival data from 109 healthy adults aged 18–60 years were pooled. All individuals had participated in a fear conditioning protocol in a fMRI environment, during which two cues were partially reinforced (CS+) with a shock and a third cue was not (CS−). Using SCR to the conditioned stimuli and differential SCR (CS+ minus CS−), we created two groups of 30 individuals: low conditioners (defined as those showing the smallest SCR to the CS+ and smallest differential SCR) and high conditioners (defined as those showing the largest SCR to the CS+ and largest differential SCR). Our analyses showed differences in patterns of brain activations between these two groups during conditioning in the following regions: dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, amygdala, subgenual anterior cingulate cortex, and insular cortex. Our findings suggest that low or absent SCR conditionability is associated with hypoactivation of brain regions involved in fear learning and expression. This highlights the need to be cautious when excluding SCR nonconditioners and to consider the potential implications of such exclusion when interpreting the findings from studies of conditioned fear.

show abstract

“…Although research has examined factors such as age, gender, and education that may influence the magnitude of conditioned SC responses (e.g., Rosenbaum et al, ), the reason that some individuals fail to show measurable SC levels and/or an unconditioned response is less clear. There is evidence connecting certain trait factors and diagnoses, specifically psychopathy (e.g., Lorber, ) and schizophrenia (e.g., Holt et al, ; Öhman, ), with reduced electrodermal activity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of skin conductance in African American and Non–African American participants in studies of conditioned fear

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Skin conductance (SC) is a psychophysiological measure of sympathetic nervous system activity that is commonly used in research to assess conditioned fear responses. A portion of individuals evidence very low or unmeasurable SC levels (SCL) and/or response (SCR) during fear conditioning, which precludes the use of their SC data. The reason that some individuals do not produce measurable SCL and/or SCR is not clear; some early research suggested that race may be an influencing factor. In the current manuscript, archival data from five fear conditioning samples collected from four different laboratories were examined to explore SCL and SCR magnitude in African American (AA) and non-African American (non-AA) participants. Across studies, the aggregate group difference for exclusion due to unmeasurable SCL or no measurable SCR to an unconditioned stimulus reflected a significant medium effect size (d = 0.54). Furthermore, 24.3% (range: 0 - 48.3%) of AA participants met SC exclusion criteria versus 14.3% (range: 4.3 - 24.2%) of non-AA participants. AA participants also displayed significantly lower SCL during habituation (d = 0.58). The low SC levels and responses in AA individuals and the consequent exclusion of their contributions to fear conditioning study results impacts the generalizability of findings across races. Given higher rates of PTSD and chronic anxiety in AA individuals, it is important that AA individuals not be excluded from fear conditioning research, which informs the treatment of anxiety and PTSD. Examination of the basis of very low SCL and/or SCR is a potentially informative direction for future research.

show abstract

Demographic factors predict magnitude of conditioned fear

Cited by 15 publications

References 42 publications

Who is studied in de novo fear conditioning paradigms? An examination of demographic and stimulus characteristics predicting fear learning

Who is studied in de novo fear conditioning paradigms? An examination of demographic and stimulus characteristics predicting fear learning

Absence of conditioned responding in humans: A bad measure or individual differences?

Assessment of skin conductance in African American and Non–African American participants in studies of conditioned fear

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About