ArticleResearch square2024
Using Virtual Reality to Study Spatial Mapping and Threat Learning.
Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Using spatial mapping processes to learn about threat and safety in an environment is crucial for survival. Research using conditioning paradigms has explored the effects of state (transient arousal) and trait anxiety (anxiety as an aspect of personality) on threat learning and acquisition. However, results are mixed, and little is known regarding why some individuals do not learn to discriminate between threat and safety during contextual conditioning. We used a virtual reality (VR) contextual threat conditioning paradigm to elucidate the effects of state and trait anxiety on contextual threat learning. 70 healthy participants (46 female) navigated and "picked" flowers in a VR environment. Flowers picked in the dangerous zone (half of the environment) were paired with an electric shock (or "bee sting") to the hand; flowers picked in the safe zone were never paired with a shock. Participants also collected and returned neutral objects as a measure of spatial memory. Galvanic skin response (GSR) was measured throughout the task and anxiety was assessed via the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Participants were categorized as learners if they correctly identified the two zones after the task. Non-learners, compared to learners, performed significantly worse during the spatial memory task and demonstrated significantly higher state anxiety scores and GSR levels throughout the task. Learners showed higher skin conductance response (SCR) in the dangerous zone compared to the safe zone while non-learners showed no SCR differences between zones. These results indicate that state anxiety may impair spatial mapping, disrupting contextual threat learning.
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.