Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Measuring human trace fear conditioning
View through CrossRef
Trace fear conditioning is an important research paradigm to model aversive learning in biological or clinical scenarios, where predictors (conditioned stimuli, CS) and aversive outcomes (unconditioned stimuli, US) are separated in time. The optimal measurement of human trace fear conditioning, and in particular of memory retention after consolidation, is currently unclear. We conducted two identical experiments (N1 = 28, N2 = 28) with a 15-s trace interval and a recall test 1 week after acquisition, while recording several psychophysiological observables. In a calibration approach, we explored which learning and memory measures distinguished CS+ and CS- in the first experiment and confirmed the most sensitive measures in the second experiment. We found that in the recall test without reinforcement, only fear-potentiated startle but not skin conductance, pupil size, heart period, or respiration amplitude, differentiated CS+ and CS-. During acquisition without startle probes, skin conductance responses and pupil size responses but not heart period or respiration amplitude differentiated CS+ and CS-. As a side finding, there was no evidence for extinction of fear-potentiated startle over 30 trials without reinforcement. These results may be useful to inform future substantive research using human trace fear conditioning protocols.
Title: Measuring human trace fear conditioning
Description:
Trace fear conditioning is an important research paradigm to model aversive learning in biological or clinical scenarios, where predictors (conditioned stimuli, CS) and aversive outcomes (unconditioned stimuli, US) are separated in time.
The optimal measurement of human trace fear conditioning, and in particular of memory retention after consolidation, is currently unclear.
We conducted two identical experiments (N1 = 28, N2 = 28) with a 15-s trace interval and a recall test 1 week after acquisition, while recording several psychophysiological observables.
In a calibration approach, we explored which learning and memory measures distinguished CS+ and CS- in the first experiment and confirmed the most sensitive measures in the second experiment.
We found that in the recall test without reinforcement, only fear-potentiated startle but not skin conductance, pupil size, heart period, or respiration amplitude, differentiated CS+ and CS-.
During acquisition without startle probes, skin conductance responses and pupil size responses but not heart period or respiration amplitude differentiated CS+ and CS-.
As a side finding, there was no evidence for extinction of fear-potentiated startle over 30 trials without reinforcement.
These results may be useful to inform future substantive research using human trace fear conditioning protocols.
Related Results
Neural substrates underlying human delay and trace eyeblink conditioning
Neural substrates underlying human delay and trace eyeblink conditioning
Classical conditioning paradigms, such as trace conditioning, in which a silent period elapses between the offset of the conditioned stimulus (CS) and the delivery of the unconditi...
Understanding Fear Conditioning: Psychophysiological Responses, Anxiety, and Startle Reactivity in Karachi Undergraduates – A Pilot Study
Understanding Fear Conditioning: Psychophysiological Responses, Anxiety, and Startle Reactivity in Karachi Undergraduates – A Pilot Study
Background: Fear conditioning, a cornerstone in the exploration of fear learning, provides insights into the intricate mechanisms shaping adaptive and maladaptive fear responses. T...
Starting Fear Is a Stronger Predictor of Long-Term Fear than Rate of Change in Fear in Human Fear Conditioning
Starting Fear Is a Stronger Predictor of Long-Term Fear than Rate of Change in Fear in Human Fear Conditioning
In rodent studies, faster extinction rate has been shown to predict less long-term fear. However, this has scarcely been studied in humans. The present report investigated the asso...
Behavioral mechanisms of context fear generalization in mice
Behavioral mechanisms of context fear generalization in mice
There is growing interest in generalization of learned contextual fear, driven in part by the hypothesis that mood and anxiety disorders stem from impaired hippocampal mechanisms o...
Fear acquisition requires awareness in trace but not delay conditioning
Fear acquisition requires awareness in trace but not delay conditioning
AbstractThe present study explored fear acquisition in differential delay versus trace conditioning in regard to the potential role of the acquired contingency awareness. One of tw...
Htr3a receptors control attenuation of fear responses by modulating the corticolimbic activity and synchronization
Htr3a receptors control attenuation of fear responses by modulating the corticolimbic activity and synchronization
Abstract
The fear circuit orchestrates defensive responses to environmental threats and is essential for survival. Dysregulation of this system i...
Trace eyeblink conditioning is hippocampally dependent in mice
Trace eyeblink conditioning is hippocampally dependent in mice
AbstractThe goal of this study was to determine whether trace eyeblink conditioning is a hippocampally dependent associative learning task in the mouse. First, we examined trace in...
Parallel Acquisition of Awareness and Trace Eyeblink Classical Conditioning
Parallel Acquisition of Awareness and Trace Eyeblink Classical Conditioning
Trace eyeblink conditioning (with a trace interval ≥500 msec) depends on the integrity of the hippocampus and requires that participants develop awareness of the stimulus contingen...

