Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
The Startle Reflex:
A Measure of Emotion and “Attention”
John J. Curtin, Ph.D.
University of Wisconsin, Madison
REFERENCES
Anthony, B. J. (1985). In the blink of an eye: Implications of the reflex modification for
information processi...
Curtin, J. J., Lang, A. R., Patrick, C. J., & Stritzke, W. G. K. (1998). Alcohol and fear-
potentiated startle: The role o...
Miller, M. W., Patrick, C. J., & Levenston, G. K. (2002). Affective imagery and the startle
response: Probing mechanisms o...
The Startle Reflex and Emotion
Response matching hypothesis
o Startle reflex is a defensive response
o The magnitude of th...
Measurement of the Startle Reflex
Measurement
o Elicited with brief burst of white noise (“startle
probe”) presented over ...
Amygdala
CG LH PVH RPC
Freezing Blood
Pressure
Stress
Hormones
Startle
Reflex
Neural Circuitry of Fear, Ledoux et al.,
Amygdala
CG LH PVH RPC
Freezing Blood
Pressure
Stress
Hormones
Startle
Reflex
Sensory
Thalamus
Auditory Fear
Stimulus
Neur...
Amygdala
CG LH PVH RPC
Freezing Blood
Pressure
Stress
Hormones
Startle
Reflex
Sensory
Thalamus
Auditory
Cortex
Auditory Fe...
Amygdala
CG LH PVH RPC
Freezing Blood
Pressure
Stress
Hormones
Startle
Reflex
Sensory
Thalamus
Auditory
Cortex
Association...
Neural Circuitry of Startle Reflex
Amygdala
Nucleus Reticularis
Pontis Caudalis (RPC)
Cochlear Root
Neurons
Spinal & Facia...
Fear Conditioning and Startle in Animals
o Brown, Kalish, and Farber (1951) is classic animal study
o Michael Davis and co...
Fear Conditioning and Startle in Humans
Spence & Runquist, 1958
o Forward and backward pairing of CS (light) with
shock UC...
Attentional Modulation of Startle
Attentional effects on reflex magnitude
o Reviewed in Anthony (1985)
o Increased if matc...
Slide Viewing Paradigm
Vrana, Spence, & Lang, 1988
o 36 slides (12 pleasant, 12 neutral, 12 unpleasant)
o 6s presentation ...
Additional Measures in Slide Viewing
Attention or Emotion in Slide Viewing
Bradley, Cuthbert & Lang (1990)
o Compared startle response to acoustic vs. visual
p...
Lateralization of the Reflex
Bradley, Cuthbert, and Lang (1991)
o Monoaural probes to left and right ears during slide
vie...
Attention and Valence in Picture Processing
Cuthbert, Schupp, Bradley, McManis, & Lang (1998)
o Tones and probes presented...
Imagery and Startle
Miller, Patrick, & Levenston (2002)
o Participants trained to image standard or personal
pleasant neut...
Time Course of Response in Slide Viewing
Bradley, Cuthbert, and Lang, 1993
o Examined startle across the slide viewing tim...
Arousal Effects
Cuthbert, Bradley, & Lang, 1996
o Varied valence (pleasant, neutral, and unpleasant)
and arousal (3 levels...
Habituation of the Startle Reflex
Bradley, M. M., Lang, P. J., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1993). Emotion,
novelty, and the startle...
Discrete Periods in Slide Viewing
Dichter, Tomarken, & Baucom, 2002
o Examined startle before (1.5-2.5s), during (3.5-4.5s...
Startle and Mood effects
Bradley, Cuthbert, & Lang, 1996
o Presented slides blocked on valence (24 per valence)
o Examined...
Startle during Sound Perception
Bradley & Lang, 2000
o 60 affective sounds (listen to example)
o Visual startle probes
o O...
Stress Response Dampening Model
o Alcohol intoxication produces a direct, pharmacological
suppression of activity in the d...
Method
o Standard emotional slide viewing paradigm
o 36 slides (12 pos, 12 neut, 12 neg)
o Slides presented for 6 seconds
...
Valence Modulated Startle
-2
-1
0
1
2
Pleasant Neutral Unpleasant
Valence
Blinkmagnitude(z-score)
Alcohol does not affect ...
Overall Startle Response
0
4
8
12
No alcohol Alcohol
Beverage condition
Blinkmagnitude(mircovolts)
Alcohol produces a sign...
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Pleasant Neutral Unpleasant
Valence
SCR(microsiemens)
Skin Conductance Response
Alcohol does red...
Diazepam and Startle
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Placebo 10 mg 15mg
Drug condition
Fearpotentiation
Patrick, Berthot, & Moore (1...
o Alcohol intoxication reduces “attentional capacity”
(Alcohol myopia)
o Alcohol focuses attention on the most salient sti...
Participants
Measures
o 48 social drinkers in 2 beverage conditions: Alcohol
(0.075%) and No-alcohol
• Startle response
• ...
o 8 blocks alternating between Shock threat and Safe
o 6 positive slides in each block
o 6 startle probes in each block
- ...
Skin Conductance
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
No-alcohol Alcohol
microsiemens
Safe
Threat
Corrugator Level
-0.5
-0...
Skin Conductance
0
2
4
6
8
No-alcohol Alcohol
microsiemens
Safe
Threat
Heart Rate
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
No-alcohol Alcohol
BPMchan...
0
2
4
6
8
10
No-distraction Distraction
FPS(mircovolts)
No-alcohol
Alcohol
o In no-distraction condition, sig. FPS observe...
Method
Participants
o 48 social drinkers in 2 beverage conditions Alcohol
(0.08%) and No-alcohol
Measures
o Startle respon...
Trial Structure
Startle Shock Button press
S1 ! S2 ^
300ms 1400ms 300ms 200ms 300ms
S1
Threat-focus: Animal/Body-part
Divi...
Next Block: SHOCK Only
Read each word as it is presented
Shocks to animal words
HEAD
NECK
BEAR
!!!SHOCK!!!
Next Block: TASK & SHOCK
Press button quickly to square after GREEN word
Do not press button after RED word
Shocks to ANIM...
HAND
MOUTH
TIGER
!!!SHOCK!!!
10 of 10 responses credited in this block
Fear Potentiated Startle
0
3
6
9
12
No-alcohol Alcohol
FPS(microvolts)
Threat-focus
Divided attention
o In threat focus, n...
The Next Logical Step
40
65
90
115
140
No Safety Safety
CSM
CSP
Deliberate Emotion Regulation
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Pre-
regulation
Suppress
Maintain
Enhance
Neutral
Negative
Deliberate Regulation when Intoxicated
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
SUPPRESS MAINTAIN ENHANCE
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
...
Fear vs. Anxiety
Grillon, C., Davis, M., & Phillips, R. G. (1997). Fear-
potentiated startle conditioning in humans: Expli...
Affective Consequences of Active Coping
Miller, Curtin, & Patrick, 1999
o Examined active vs. passive coping in a threat p...
Active Avoidance and Behavioral Activation
1514131211109876543210
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Active Ta...
Active Tapping Passive Tapping Passive No Tapping Control Tapping
46
48
50
52
54
CS+
CS-
BlinkMagnitude(T-scores)
Active A...
Emotion and Psychopathy
47
49
51
53
Non-psychopaths Pure antisocial Psychopaths
Blinkmag.(T-score)
Pleasant
Neutral
Unplea...
Measurement and Processing Issues
Data acquisition
o Elicited with white noise probe (95 – 105 dB)
o Sampled at 1000Hz
o B...
StartleReflex.ppt - PowerPoint Presentation
StartleReflex.ppt - PowerPoint Presentation
StartleReflex.ppt - PowerPoint Presentation
StartleReflex.ppt - PowerPoint Presentation
StartleReflex.ppt - PowerPoint Presentation
StartleReflex.ppt - PowerPoint Presentation
StartleReflex.ppt - PowerPoint Presentation
StartleReflex.ppt - PowerPoint Presentation
StartleReflex.ppt - PowerPoint Presentation
StartleReflex.ppt - PowerPoint Presentation
StartleReflex.ppt - PowerPoint Presentation
StartleReflex.ppt - PowerPoint Presentation
StartleReflex.ppt - PowerPoint Presentation
StartleReflex.ppt - PowerPoint Presentation
StartleReflex.ppt - PowerPoint Presentation
StartleReflex.ppt - PowerPoint Presentation
StartleReflex.ppt - PowerPoint Presentation
StartleReflex.ppt - PowerPoint Presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

StartleReflex.ppt - PowerPoint Presentation

2,081

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,081
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • See that individuals have larger responses overall at time 2, which is 12 seconds post-slide onset
    They have had more time to process the instruction and the stimulus
    The linear pattern still holds, but in general, people are better are enhancing their responses
    NO EFFECT AT TIME 4 (time 3 post-slide onset; 15 seconds post-slide onset) SO IT’S NOT SHOWN
  • Transcript of "StartleReflex.ppt - PowerPoint Presentation"

    1. 1. The Startle Reflex: A Measure of Emotion and “Attention” John J. Curtin, Ph.D. University of Wisconsin, Madison
    2. 2. REFERENCES Anthony, B. J. (1985). In the blink of an eye: Implications of the reflex modification for information processing. In P. K. Ackles, J. R. Jennings, & M. G. M. Coles (Eds.), Advances in Psychophysiology (Vol. 1, pp. 167-218). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Bradley, M. M., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (1990). Startle reflex modification: Emotion or attention? Psychophysiology, 27, 513-522. Bradley, M. M., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (1991). Startle and emotion: Lateral acoustic probes and the bilateral blink. Psychophysiology., 28, 285-295. Bradley, M. M., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (1993). Pictures as prepulse: Attention and emotion in startle modification. Psychophysiology., 30, 541-545. Bradley, M. M. & Lang, P. J. (2000). Affective reactions to acoustic stimuli. Psychophysiology., 37, 204-215. Bradley, M. M., Lang, P. J., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1993). Emotion, novelty, and the startle reflex: Habituation in humans. Behavioral Neuroscience., 107, 970-980. Bradley, M. M., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (1996). Picture media and emotion: Effects of a sustained affective content. Psychophysiology., 33, 662-670. Bradley, M. M., Lang, P. J., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1993). Emotion, novelty, and the startle reflex: Habituation in humans. Behavioral Neuroscience., 107, 970-980.
    3. 3. Curtin, J. J., Lang, A. R., Patrick, C. J., & Stritzke, W. G. K. (1998). Alcohol and fear- potentiated startle: The role of competing cognitive demands in the stress-reducing effects of intoxication. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 547-565. Curtin, J. J., Patrick, C. J., Lang, A. R., Cacioppo, J. T., & Birbaumer, N. (2001). Alcohol affects emotion through cognition. Psychological Science., 12, 527-531. Cuthbert, B. N., Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1996). Probing picture perception: Activation and emotion. Psychophysiology., 33, 103-111. Cuthbert, B. N. Schupp, H., Bradley, M., McManis, M., & Lang P. (1998). Probing affective picturesL Attended startle and tone probes. Psychophysiology, 35, 344-347. Dichter, G. S., Tomarken, A. J., & Baucom, B. R. (2002). Startle modulation before, during and after exposure to emotional stimuli. International Journal of Psychophysiology., 43, 191-196. Grillon, C., Davis, M., & Phillips, R. G. (1997). Fear-potentiated startle conditioning in humans: Explicit and contextual cue conditioning following paired versus unpaired training. Psychophysiology, 34, 451-458. Miller, M. W., Curtin, J. J., & Patrick, C. J. (1999). A startle probe methodology for investigating the effects of active avoidance on negative emotional reactivity. Biological Psychology., 50, 235-257. REFERENCES
    4. 4. Miller, M. W., Patrick, C. J., & Levenston, G. K. (2002). Affective imagery and the startle response: Probing mechanisms of modulation during pleasant scenes, personal experiences, and discrete negative emotions. Psychophysiology, 39, 519-529 Patrick, C. J., Berthot, B. D., & Moore, J. D. (1996). Diazepam blocks fear-potentiated startle in humans. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105 , 89-96. Spence, K. W., & Runquist, W. H. (1958). Temporal effects of conditioned fear on the eyelid reflex. Journal of Experimental Psychology., 55, 613-616. Stritzke, W. G. K., Patrick, C. J., & Lang, A. R. (1995). Alcohol and human emotion: A multidimensional analysis incorporating startle-probe methodology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 114-122. van-Boxtel, A., Boelhouwer, A. J. W., & Bos, A. R. (1998). Optimal EMG signal bandwidth and interelectrode distance for the recording of acoustic, electrocutaneous and photic blink reflexes. Psychophysiology, 35, 690-697. Vrana, S. R., Spence, E. L., & Lang, P. J. (1988). The startle probe response: A new measure of emotion? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 487-491. REFERENCES
    5. 5. The Startle Reflex and Emotion Response matching hypothesis o Startle reflex is a defensive response o The magnitude of the reflex is INCREASED when the organism is fearful (fear potentiated startle; FPS) o The magnitude of the reflex is DECREASED when the organism is “feeling good”***
    6. 6. Measurement of the Startle Reflex Measurement o Elicited with brief burst of white noise (“startle probe”) presented over headphones o Eyeblink response is indexed by recording electrical activity in the orbicularis oculi muscle
    7. 7. Amygdala CG LH PVH RPC Freezing Blood Pressure Stress Hormones Startle Reflex Neural Circuitry of Fear, Ledoux et al.,
    8. 8. Amygdala CG LH PVH RPC Freezing Blood Pressure Stress Hormones Startle Reflex Sensory Thalamus Auditory Fear Stimulus Neural Circuitry of Fear, Ledoux et al.,
    9. 9. Amygdala CG LH PVH RPC Freezing Blood Pressure Stress Hormones Startle Reflex Sensory Thalamus Auditory Cortex Auditory Fear Stimulus Neural Circuitry of Fear, Ledoux et al.,
    10. 10. Amygdala CG LH PVH RPC Freezing Blood Pressure Stress Hormones Startle Reflex Sensory Thalamus Auditory Cortex Association Cortex Auditory Fear Stimulus Hippocampal Formation Neural Circuitry of Fear, Ledoux et al.,
    11. 11. Neural Circuitry of Startle Reflex Amygdala Nucleus Reticularis Pontis Caudalis (RPC) Cochlear Root Neurons Spinal & Facial Motonuerons Abrupt noise (probe) Startle Reflex Fear conditioning/ Shock sensitization • Lesions of block FPS • Electrical stim enhances startle reflex
    12. 12. Fear Conditioning and Startle in Animals o Brown, Kalish, and Farber (1951) is classic animal study o Michael Davis and colleagues have demonstrated:  Increased FPS with increased shock intensity  Increased FPS with anxiogenics  Decreased FPS with anxiolytics Brown, Kalish, and Farber (1951) 0 10 20 30 Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Extinction Control Fear conditioned
    13. 13. Fear Conditioning and Startle in Humans Spence & Runquist, 1958 o Forward and backward pairing of CS (light) with shock UCS o Airpuff probes presented at 500 and 4500ms post CS onset o Measured eyeblink closure 8 10.5 13 15.5 18 0 10 20 30 40 4.5s Forward 4.5s Backward .5s Forward .5s Backward
    14. 14. Attentional Modulation of Startle Attentional effects on reflex magnitude o Reviewed in Anthony (1985) o Increased if matches modality of foreground stimulus o Decreased as more attention is directed to foreground  Reaction time task (time course, covary with HR)  Interest level (Nudes vs. basket; tones vs. music; faces vs. blank screen) Anthony & Graham (1985) 175 200 225 250 275 Match MisMatch Modality Blinkmag.(A-Dunits) Simons & Zelson (1985) 100 125 150 Interesting Dull Foreground Inteserest Blinkmag.(A-Dunits)
    15. 15. Slide Viewing Paradigm Vrana, Spence, & Lang, 1988 o 36 slides (12 pleasant, 12 neutral, 12 unpleasant) o 6s presentation with 16-24s ITI o 9 unpredictable probe presentations within valence and 9 ITI startles 300 350 400 450 Pleasant Neutral Unpleasant
    16. 16. Additional Measures in Slide Viewing
    17. 17. Attention or Emotion in Slide Viewing Bradley, Cuthbert & Lang (1990) o Compared startle response to acoustic vs. visual probes during slide viewing o Regardless of probe modality, same direction of linear valence effect was observed Acoustic Probes 800 850 900 950 1000 Pleasant Neutral Unpleasant Visual Probes 440 465 490 515 540 Pleasant Neutral Unpleasant
    18. 18. Lateralization of the Reflex Bradley, Cuthbert, and Lang (1991) o Monoaural probes to left and right ears during slide viewing and recorded left and right orbicularis startle response [see also, Bradley, Cuthbert and Lang, 1996] o No valence modulation elicited by right ear probes o Response is larger on ipsilateral measurement site o No interaction of measurement site with slide valence Left Ear Probe 150 200 250 300 Left orbicularis Right orbicularis Pleasant Neutral Unpleasant Right Ear Probe 150 200 250 300 Left orbicularis Right orbicularis Pleasant Neutral Unpleasant
    19. 19. Attention and Valence in Picture Processing Cuthbert, Schupp, Bradley, McManis, & Lang (1998) o Tones and probes presented during slide and ITI o Task was to press button to indicate detection of match (e.g., probe-probe) during ITI o Startle response to probe displays typical valence effect o P3 to probes (and tones) shows attentional effect to all affective material Right Ear Probe 12 16 20 24 Attend/Task No-Task Pleasant Neutral Unpleasant Startle Response 100 107 114 121 Attend/Task No-task Pleasant Neutral Unpleasant
    20. 20. Imagery and Startle Miller, Patrick, & Levenston (2002) o Participants trained to image standard or personal pleasant neutral or unpleasant scripts -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Exp 1 Exp2: Standard Exp2: Personal Blinkmag(z-score) Pleasant Neutral Unpleasant
    21. 21. Time Course of Response in Slide Viewing Bradley, Cuthbert, and Lang, 1993 o Examined startle across the slide viewing time-course o Early “pre-pulse”/attentional effects o Later valence effects 3 4 5 6 300 800 1300 3800 6300 9800 Positive Neutral Negative 3 4 5 6 Early Late Positive Neutral Negative
    22. 22. Arousal Effects Cuthbert, Bradley, & Lang, 1996 o Varied valence (pleasant, neutral, and unpleasant) and arousal (3 levels) ratings of slides o 3 probe intensities (80, 95, and 105 dB) o Skin and HR effects vs. Startle effects
    23. 23. Habituation of the Startle Reflex Bradley, M. M., Lang, P. J., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1993). Emotion, novelty, and the startle reflex: Habituation in humans. Behavioral Neuroscience., 107(6), 970-980. Previous research with both animal and human Ss has shown that startle reflex magnitude is potentiated in an aversive stimulus context, relative to responses elicited in a neutral or appetitive context. In the present experiment, the same pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral picture stimuli were repeatedly presented to human Ss. Startle reflex habituation was assessed in each stimulus context and was compared with the habituation patterns of heart rate, electrodermal, and facial corrugator muscle responses. All systems showed initial differentiation among affective picture contents and general habituation over trials. The startle reflex alone, however, continued to differentiate among pleasant, neutral, and unpleasant pictures throughout the presentation series. These results suggest that (1) the startle probe reflex is relatively uninfluenced by stimulus novelty, (2) the startle modulatory circuit (identified with amygdala- reticular connections in animals) varies systematically with affective valence, and (3) the modulatory influence is less subject to habituation than is the obligatory startle pathway or responses in other somatic and autonomic systems.
    24. 24. Discrete Periods in Slide Viewing Dichter, Tomarken, & Baucom, 2002 o Examined startle before (1.5-2.5s), during (3.5-4.5s) and after (1.5-2.5s) a slide viewing period o Valence cued with arrow followed 4s later by slide 40 45 50 55 60 A nticipation View ing O ffset Positive Neutral Negative
    25. 25. Startle and Mood effects Bradley, Cuthbert, & Lang, 1996 o Presented slides blocked on valence (24 per valence) o Examined slide viewing and inter-slide interval effects o Included startle, corrugator, SC and HR. Also, affective judgment of words 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 First half Second half Postive Neutral Negative
    26. 26. Startle during Sound Perception Bradley & Lang, 2000 o 60 affective sounds (listen to example) o Visual startle probes o Observed typical linear valence effect for startle
    27. 27. Stress Response Dampening Model o Alcohol intoxication produces a direct, pharmacological suppression of activity in the defensive (fear/anxiety) system. o Therefore, alcohol consumption is reinforcing -- particularly when consumed in stressful contexts.
    28. 28. Method o Standard emotional slide viewing paradigm o 36 slides (12 pos, 12 neut, 12 neg) o Slides presented for 6 seconds Paradigm Participants o 36 social drinkers in 2 beverage conditions: Alcohol (0.075%) and No-alcohol o Startle response o Corrugator (frown) EMG o Autonomic measures (SC, HR) o Slide ratings (valence, arousal) Measures Stritzke, Patrick, & Lang, (1995). Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 114-122.
    29. 29. Valence Modulated Startle -2 -1 0 1 2 Pleasant Neutral Unpleasant Valence Blinkmagnitude(z-score) Alcohol does not affect the “valence modulated” startle response. (i.e. sig. linear effect in both groups)
    30. 30. Overall Startle Response 0 4 8 12 No alcohol Alcohol Beverage condition Blinkmagnitude(mircovolts) Alcohol produces a significant reduction in overall blink magnitude (and latency, not displayed).
    31. 31. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Pleasant Neutral Unpleasant Valence SCR(microsiemens) Skin Conductance Response Alcohol does reduce arousal response, but to all emotional slides, regardless of slide valence.
    32. 32. Diazepam and Startle -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Placebo 10 mg 15mg Drug condition Fearpotentiation Patrick, Berthot, & Moore (1996) o Placebo or diazepam (Valium) o Negative and neutral slide viewing paradigm o Dose dependent effect of diazepam on fear potentiated startle to negative slides
    33. 33. o Alcohol intoxication reduces “attentional capacity” (Alcohol myopia) o Alcohol focuses attention on the most salient stimuli in the environment o If the most salient stimulus in the environment is pleasant, stress response will be reduced o Note: If most salient stimulus is stressor, stress response will be increased Attention Allocation Model
    34. 34. Participants Measures o 48 social drinkers in 2 beverage conditions: Alcohol (0.075%) and No-alcohol • Startle response • Corrugator (frown) EMG • Autonomic measures (SC, HR) Curtin, Lang, Patrick, & Stritzke, W. G. K. (1998). Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 547-565. Method
    35. 35. o 8 blocks alternating between Shock threat and Safe o 6 positive slides in each block o 6 startle probes in each block - half during slide presentation (distraction) - half during inter-slide interval (no-distraction) o Fear poteniated startle (FPS) is the difference between startle response in Shock threat vs. Safe blocks !- Slide - Startle probe Key ! ! !! ! ! ! !! Method
    36. 36. Skin Conductance -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 No-alcohol Alcohol microsiemens Safe Threat Corrugator Level -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 No-alcohol Alcohol microvolts Safe Threat Tonic Levels of SC and Corrugator o Threat manipulation increased SCL and Corrugator level. o Beverage does not moderate this threat effect.
    37. 37. Skin Conductance 0 2 4 6 8 No-alcohol Alcohol microsiemens Safe Threat Heart Rate -8 -6 -4 -2 0 No-alcohol Alcohol BPMchange Safe Threat Corrugator Response 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 No-alcohol Alcohol microvolts Safe Threat Phasic Response to Threat Cue o Sig. threat effect in phasic response to block onset light cue o Beverage did not moderate this effect
    38. 38. 0 2 4 6 8 10 No-distraction Distraction FPS(mircovolts) No-alcohol Alcohol o In no-distraction condition, sig. FPS observed in both beverage groups. o In distraction condition, sig. FPS observed only in no- alcohol group. Threshold for significant FPS Fear Potentiated Startle
    39. 39. Method Participants o 48 social drinkers in 2 beverage conditions Alcohol (0.08%) and No-alcohol Measures o Startle response o Event related potentials (focused on P3) o Task performance Curtin et al., (2001). Psychological Science
    40. 40. Trial Structure Startle Shock Button press S1 ! S2 ^ 300ms 1400ms 300ms 200ms 300ms S1 Threat-focus: Animal/Body-part Divided attention: Animal/Body-part or Animal/Body-part Method • 24 blocks of trials (20 trials per block) – 8 Threat-focus blocks – 16 Divided attention blocks Block Structure
    41. 41. Next Block: SHOCK Only Read each word as it is presented Shocks to animal words
    42. 42. HEAD
    43. 43. NECK
    44. 44. BEAR
    45. 45. !!!SHOCK!!!
    46. 46. Next Block: TASK & SHOCK Press button quickly to square after GREEN word Do not press button after RED word Shocks to ANIMAL words
    47. 47. HAND
    48. 48. MOUTH
    49. 49. TIGER
    50. 50. !!!SHOCK!!!
    51. 51. 10 of 10 responses credited in this block
    52. 52. Fear Potentiated Startle 0 3 6 9 12 No-alcohol Alcohol FPS(microvolts) Threat-focus Divided attention o In threat focus, no sig. difference in FPS between beverage groups o In divided attention, FPS sig. reduced
    53. 53. The Next Logical Step 40 65 90 115 140 No Safety Safety CSM CSP
    54. 54. Deliberate Emotion Regulation 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Pre- regulation Suppress Maintain Enhance Neutral Negative
    55. 55. Deliberate Regulation when Intoxicated 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 SUPPRESS MAINTAIN ENHANCE 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 SUPPRESS MAINTAIN ENHANCE Sober Intoxicated (n=3)
    56. 56. Fear vs. Anxiety Grillon, C., Davis, M., & Phillips, R. G. (1997). Fear- potentiated startle conditioning in humans: Explicit and contextual cue conditioning following paired versus unpaired training. Psychophysiology, 34, 451-458. Conditioned fear in response to explicit and contextual cues was examined using the startle reflex in 3 groups of college students ( N = 58) over 2 sessions separated by 4- 5 days. The CS was paired with an aversive unconditioned stimulus (UCS; shock) during conditioning in the paired but not in the unpaired group. In the reaction time (RT) group, the UCS was a nonaversive visual signal for an RT task. In the paired group, the CS potentiated startle in the postconditioning phase. This conditioned response was fully retained over the retention interval. There was no substantial change in baseline startle (startle delivered in the absence of CS). By contrast, startle was not potentiated by the CS in the unpaired group, but baseline startle was increased from Session 1 to Session 2. In the RT group, startle was not affected by the CS, and baseline startle was reduced from Session 1 to Session 2. These results suggest that paired presentations of a CS and an aversive UCS result in conditioned fear in response to the CS but little contextual fear, whereas unpaired presentations of a CS and UCS lead to poor explicit cue conditioning but substantial contextual fear.
    57. 57. Affective Consequences of Active Coping Miller, Curtin, & Patrick, 1999 o Examined active vs. passive coping in a threat paradigm o 4 groups  Active tapping (contingent blasts)  Passive tapping (yoked/non-contingent)  Passive no-tapping (yoked)  Control tapping (no blasts) o Task included string of 30 asterisks during CS+ and CS- trials:  Tapping during CS+ for tapping groups  Blasts (.5s, 115dB) during CS+ for threat groups o Used airpuff as startle probe
    58. 58. Active Avoidance and Behavioral Activation 1514131211109876543210 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Active Tapping CS+ Active Tapping CS- Passive Tapping CS+ Passive Tapping CS- Time After CS Onset (s) HRChange(BPM)
    59. 59. Active Tapping Passive Tapping Passive No Tapping Control Tapping 46 48 50 52 54 CS+ CS- BlinkMagnitude(T-scores) Active Avoidance and Behavioral Activation
    60. 60. Emotion and Psychopathy 47 49 51 53 Non-psychopaths Pure antisocial Psychopaths Blinkmag.(T-score) Pleasant Neutral Unpleasant Patrick, Bradley, & Lang (1993) o Groups did not differ in self-report of emotional response to the slides o Psychopaths did not display the typical potentiation of startle to the negatively valent slides
    61. 61. Measurement and Processing Issues Data acquisition o Elicited with white noise probe (95 – 105 dB) o Sampled at 1000Hz o Broadband online filter (.015 - 500Hz) o Include habituation probes Data Processing o Epoch around triggers (-50 to 250ms window) o Bandpass filter (30 - 500Hz; van-Boxtel et al., 1998) o Rectify and lowpass filter (30 Hz) o Baseline correct Scoring Responses o Max response in 20 – 120 window o No response trials o Latency of response
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×