Anna E Kunze1, Arnoud Arntz2, Merel Kindt3. 1. University of Amsterdam, Weesperplein 4, 1018 XA Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam Brain and Cognition, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129, 1018 WS Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: a.e.kunze@uva.nl. 2. University of Amsterdam, Weesperplein 4, 1018 XA Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. University of Amsterdam, Weesperplein 4, 1018 XA Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam Brain and Cognition, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129, 1018 WS Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We argue that the stimuli used in traditional fear conditioning paradigms are too simple to model the learning and unlearning of complex fear memories. We therefore developed and tested an adapted fear conditioning paradigm, specifically designed for the study of complex associative memories. Second, we explored whether manipulating the meaning and complexity of the CS-UCS association strengthened the learned fear association. METHODS: In a two-day differential fear conditioning study, participants were randomly assigned to two experimental conditions. All participants were subjected to the same CSs (i.e., pictures) and UCS (i.e., 3 s film clip) during fear conditioning. However, in one of the conditions (negative-relevant context), the reinforced CS and UCS were meaningfully connected to each other by a 12 min aversive film clip presented prior to fear acquisition. Participants in the other condition (neutral context) were not able to make such meaningful connection between these stimuli, as they viewed a neutral film clip. RESULTS: Fear learning and unlearning were observed on fear-potentiated startle data and distress ratings within the adapted paradigm. Moreover, several group differences on these measures indicated increased UCS valence and enhanced associative memory strength in the negative-relevant context condition compared to the neutral context condition. LIMITATIONS: Due to technical equipment failure, skin conductance data could not be interpreted. CONCLUSIONS: The fear conditioning paradigm as presented in the negative-relevant context condition holds considerable promise for the study of complex associative fear memories and therapeutic interventions for such memories.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We argue that the stimuli used in traditional fear conditioning paradigms are too simple to model the learning and unlearning of complex fear memories. We therefore developed and tested an adapted fear conditioning paradigm, specifically designed for the study of complex associative memories. Second, we explored whether manipulating the meaning and complexity of the CS-UCS association strengthened the learned fear association. METHODS: In a two-day differential fear conditioning study, participants were randomly assigned to two experimental conditions. All participants were subjected to the same CSs (i.e., pictures) and UCS (i.e., 3 s film clip) during fear conditioning. However, in one of the conditions (negative-relevant context), the reinforced CS and UCS were meaningfully connected to each other by a 12 min aversive film clip presented prior to fear acquisition. Participants in the other condition (neutral context) were not able to make such meaningful connection between these stimuli, as they viewed a neutral film clip. RESULTS:Fear learning and unlearning were observed on fear-potentiated startle data and distress ratings within the adapted paradigm. Moreover, several group differences on these measures indicated increased UCS valence and enhanced associative memory strength in the negative-relevant context condition compared to the neutral context condition. LIMITATIONS: Due to technical equipment failure, skin conductance data could not be interpreted. CONCLUSIONS: The fear conditioning paradigm as presented in the negative-relevant context condition holds considerable promise for the study of complex associative fear memories and therapeutic interventions for such memories.
Authors: Andreas M Burger; Ilse Van Diest; Willem van der Does; Marsida Hysaj; Julian F Thayer; Jos F Brosschot; Bart Verkuil Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Alexandra H Brueckner; Johanna Lass-Hennemann; Frank H Wilhelm; Diana S Ferreira de Sá; Tanja Michael Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Annika Gieselmann; Malik Ait Aoudia; Michelle Carr; Anne Germain; Robert Gorzka; Brigitte Holzinger; Birgit Kleim; Barry Krakow; Anna E Kunze; Jaap Lancee; Michael R Nadorff; Tore Nielsen; Dieter Riemann; Hinuga Sandahl; Angelika A Schlarb; Carolin Schmid; Michael Schredl; Victor I Spoormaker; Regina Steil; Annette M van Schagen; Lutz Wittmann; Maria Zschoche; Reinhard Pietrowsky Journal: J Sleep Res Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 3.981
Authors: Lalitha Iyadurai; Renée M Visser; Alex Lau-Zhu; Kate Porcheret; Antje Horsch; Emily A Holmes; Ella L James Journal: Clin Psychol Rev Date: 2018-08-23