Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38913706›Full record

ReviewBehavioral neuroscience2024

Translational approaches to the neurobiological study of conditional discrimination and inhibition: Implications for psychiatric disease.

Susan Sangha, Jacklynn M Fitzgerald

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Behavioral neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Susan SanghaDepartment of Psychiatry, Indiana University School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0002-6461-4146
Jacklynn M FitzgeraldDepartment of Psychology, Marquette University.

Funding

Neural circuitry of safety, fear and reward cue discriminationR01MH110425 · NIMH · PURDUE UNIVERSITY · PI Susan Sangha · 2018 to 2026
$3.8M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH110425
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a growing number of studies investigating discriminatory fear conditioning and conditioned inhibition of fear to assess safety learning, in addition to extinction of cued fear. Despite all of these paradigms resulting in a reduction in fear expression, there are nuanced differences among them, which could be mediated through distinct behavioral and neural mechanisms. These differences could impact how we approach potential treatment options in clinical disorders with dysregulated fear responses. The objective of this review is to give an overview of the conditional discrimination and inhibition findings reported in both animal models and human neuropsychiatric disorders. Both behavioral and neural findings are reviewed among human and rodent studies that include conditional fear discrimination via conditional stimuli with and without reinforcement (CS+ vs. CS-, respectively) and/or conditional inhibition of fear through assessment of the fear response to a compound CS-/CS+ cue versus CS+. There are several parallels across species in behavioral fear expression as well as neural circuits promoting fear reduction in response to a CS- and/or CS-/CS+ compound cue. Continued and increased efforts to compare similar behavioral fear inhibition paradigms across species are needed to make breakthrough advances in our understanding and treatment approaches to individuals with fear disorders. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Indexed as

Conditioning, ClassicalFearMental DisordersAnimalsBrainCuesDiscrimination, PsychologicalExtinction, PsychologicalHumansInhibition, PsychologicalTranslational Research, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID38913706
PMCPMC11574918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.