Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37363175›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2023

Toward a reliable detection of arachnophobia: subjective, behavioral, and neurophysiological measures of fear response.

Eva Landová, Silvie Rádlová, Anna Pidnebesna, David Tomeček, Markéta Janovcová, Šárka Peléšková, Kristýna Sedláčková, Iveta Štolhoferová, Jakub Polák, Jaroslav Hlinka and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Neural mechanisms of fear responses to emotional stimuli: a preliminary study combining early posterior negativity and electroencephalogram source network analysis].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eva LandováDepartment of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czechia.
Silvie RádlováNational Institute of Mental Health, Klecany, Czechia.
Anna PidnebesnaNational Institute of Mental Health, Klecany, Czechia.
David TomečekNational Institute of Mental Health, Klecany, Czechia.
Markéta JanovcováDepartment of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czechia.
Šárka PeléškováDepartment of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czechia.
Kristýna SedláčkováDepartment of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czechia.
Iveta ŠtolhoferováDepartment of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czechia.
Jakub PolákDepartment of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czechia.
Jaroslav HlinkaNational Institute of Mental Health, Klecany, Czechia.
Daniel FryntaDepartment of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czechia.
Charles University · CZNational Institute of Mental Health · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The administration of questionnaires presents an easy way of obtaining important knowledge about phobic patients. However, it is not well known how these subjective measurements correspond to the patient's objective condition. Our study aimed to compare scores on questionnaires and image evaluation to the objective measurements of the behavioral approach test (BAT) and the neurophysiological effect of spiders extracted from fMRI measurements. The objective was to explore how reliably subjective statements about spiders and physiological and behavioral parameters discriminate between phobics and non-phobics, and what are the best predictors of overall brain activation. Methods: Based on a clinical interview, 165 subjects were assigned to either a "phobic" or low-fear "control" group. Finally, 30 arachnophobic and 32 healthy control subjects (with low fear of spiders) participated in this study. They completed several questionnaires (SPQ, SNAQ, DS-R) and underwent a behavioral approach test (BAT) with a live tarantula. Then, they were measured in fMRI while watching blocks of pictures including spiders and snakes. Finally, the respondents rated all the visual stimuli according to perceived fear. We proposed the Spider Fear Index (SFI) as a value characterizing the level of spider fear, computed based on the fMRI measurements. We then treated this variable as the "neurophysiological effect of spiders" and examined its contribution to the respondents' fear ratings of the stimuli seen during the fMRI using the redundancy analysis (RDA). Results: The results for fear ranks revealed that the SFI, SNAQ, DS-R, and SPQ scores had a significant effect, while BAT and SPQ scores loaded in the same direction of the first multivariate axis. The SFI was strongly correlated with both SPQ and BAT scores in the pooled sample of arachnophobic and healthy control subjects. Discussion: Both SPQ and BAT scores have a high informative value about the subject's fear of spiders and together with subjective emotional evaluation of picture stimuli can be reliable predictors of spider phobia. These parameters provide easy and non-expensive but reliable measurement wherever more expensive devices such as magnetic resonance are not available. However, SFI still reflects individual variability within the phobic group, identifying individuals with higher brain activation, which may relate to more severe phobic reactions or other sources of fMRI signal variability.

Indexed as

arachnophobiabehavioral approach testfearfMRIsnakesspiders

Identifiers

PMID37363175
PMCPMC10285442
OpenAlexW4380052452

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.