ArticleNeurobiology of learning and memory2021
Elemental and configural threat learning bias extinction generalization.
Article in Neurobiology of learning and memory, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- I Doubt It Is Safe: A Meta-analysis of Self-reported Intolerance of Uncertainty and Threat Extinction Training.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Emotional experiences often contain a multitude of details that may be represented in memory as individual elements or integrated into a single representation. How details associated with a negative emotional event are represented in memory can have important implications for extinction strategies designed to reduce emotional responses. For example, is extinguishing one cue associated with an aversive outcome sufficient to reduce learned behavior to other cues present at the time of learning that were not directly extinguished? Here, we used a between-subjects multi-day threat conditioning and extinction task to assess whether participants generalize extinction from one cue to unextinguished cues. On Day 1, one group of participants learned that a compound conditioned stimulus, composed of a tone and colored square, predicted an uncomfortable shock to the wrist (Compound group). A second group learned that the tone and square separately predicted shock (Separate group). On Day 2, participants in both groups were exposed to the tone in the absence of shocks (cue extinction). On Day 3, we tested whether extinction generalized from the extinguished to the unextinguished cue, as well as to a compound composed of both cues. Results showed that configural and elemental learning had unique and opposite effects on extinction generalization. Subjects who initially learned that a compound cue predicted shock successfully generalized extinction learning from the tone to the square, but exhibited threat relapse to the compound cue. In contrast, subjects who initially learned that each cue individually predicted shock did not generalize extinction learning from the tone to the square, but threat responses to the compound were low. These results highlight the importance of whether details of an aversive event are represented as integrated or separated memories, as these representations affect the success or limits of extinction generalization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.