Christian Grillon M.D., Williams A. Falls M.D., Rezvan Ameli, Michael Davis
{"title":"Safety signals and human anxiety: A fear-potentiated startle study","authors":"Christian Grillon M.D., Williams A. Falls M.D., Rezvan Ameli, Michael Davis","doi":"10.1002/anxi.3070010105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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 chocks (“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. Anxiety 1:13–21 (1994). © 1994 Wiley-Liss, Inc.</p>","PeriodicalId":79474,"journal":{"name":"Anxiety","volume":"1 1","pages":"13-21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1994-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/anxi.3070010105","citationCount":"33","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anxiety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anxi.3070010105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 33
Abstract
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 chocks (“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. Anxiety 1:13–21 (1994). © 1994 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
安全信号和人类焦虑:一项恐惧增强的惊吓研究
安全信号对预期焦虑程度的影响是利用人类恐惧增强惊吓反射范式来研究的。在预期不愉快的电钳(“威胁”)和在“安全”条件下测量声惊吓反射的振幅。威胁和安全情况用三种不同颜色的灯表示。两盏灯表示安全状态(安全1,安全2),另一盏灯表示威胁状态(威胁)。在第一阶段,灯光交替,每次呈现由一种颜色的光组成。在第二阶段,灯光单独呈现或以安全1(或安全2)+威胁和安全1 +安全2的两种组合呈现。在这两个阶段,都向受试者解释了灯光和电击之间的偶然性。有人强调,在第二阶段安全1和威胁光同时出现时,不能施加电击。验证被试对说明的信念和理解。在第一阶段,与安全独处条件相比,威胁独处条件下惊吓增加,反映出威胁独处条件下预期焦虑增加。在第二阶段,安全+威胁条件下的惊吓小于单独威胁条件,但大于安全+威胁条件下的惊吓。这些结果被解释为,尽管威胁信号不再与威胁相关,但它仍然能够引发预期焦虑。焦虑1:13-21(1994)。©1994 Wiley-Liss, Inc。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。