Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jun 20;9(1):8855.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-45239-3.

The effect of trait anxiety on attentional mechanisms in combined context and cue conditioning and extinction learning

Yannik Stegmann  1 , Philipp Reicherts  2 , Marta Andreatta  2 , Paul Pauli  2   3 , Matthias J Wieser  2   4
Affiliations

The effect of trait anxiety on attentional mechanisms in combined context and cue conditioning and extinction learning

Yannik Stegmann et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

Sensory processing and attention allocation are shaped by threat, but the role of trait-anxiety in sensory processing as a function of threat predictability remains incompletely understood. Therefore, we measured steady-state visual evoked potentials (ssVEPs) as an index of sensory processing of predictable and unpredictable threat cues in 29 low (LA) and 29 high (HA) trait-anxious participants during a modified NPU-paradigm followed by an extinction phase. Three different contextual cues indicated safety (N), predictable (P) or unpredictable threat (U), while foreground cues signalled shocks in the P-condition only. All participants allocated increased attentional resources to the central P-threat cue, replicating previous findings. Importantly, LA individuals exhibited larger ssVEP amplitudes to contextual threat (U and P) than to contextual safety cues, while HA individuals did not differentiate among contextual cues in general. Further, HA exhibited higher aversive ratings of all contexts compared to LA. These results suggest that high trait-anxious individuals might be worse at discriminating contextual threat stimuli and accordingly overestimate the probability and aversiveness of unpredictable threat. These findings support the notion of aberrant sensory processing of unpredictable threat in anxiety disorders, as this processing pattern is already evident in individuals at risk of these disorders.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Design. The contextual cues (top row), consisting of 4 peripherally presented geometrical symbols, flickered for 32 s with a frequency of 15 Hz. At random time points, the central cue (bottom row) is presented centrally for 3 s, flickering with a frequency of 20 Hz. The central cue was predictably associated with an aversive stimulus in the P-condition. During the U-condition, aversive stimuli were unpredictably presented independent of the central cue presentation. No US were delivered during the N-condition. The central cues are slightly tilted for each condition to disentangle the predictive meaning of central and contextual cues.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Electrode layout of the 129 electrodes Electrical Geodesics System. The 7 dark grey coloured electrodes were used for central cue ssVEP analyses, whereas all 19 light and dark grey coloured electrodes were used for analyses of contextual cue responses.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(Left) Mean results (±SEM) for central cue ssVEP-analysis (20 Hz) averaged across the whole cue presentation (100–2,900 ms). Central cues in the P-condition elicited highest ssVEP amplitudes during acquisition. (Right) Mean results (±SEM) for contextual cue onset ssVEP-analysis (15 Hz) averaged across the first five seconds after contextual cue onset (100–4,900 ms). Only LA individuals show differential processing of the contextual cues during acquisition. From acquisition to extinction, amplitudes to the contextual cues in the N-condition increased.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Mean scalp topographies of ssVEP amplitudes to the conditions during acquisition (left) and extinction (right) evoked by the central cue (top rows) and contextual cues (bottom rows).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Mean results (±SEM) for subjective threat (left) and US-contingency (right) ratings for central cue analysis. During acquisition the combination of central and contextual cues in the P-condition are rated with highest subjective threat and US-contingency. No differences were found between groups.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Mean results (±SEM) for subjective threat (left) and US-contingency (right) ratings for contextual cue analysis. During acquisition the contextual cues in the U-condition were rated with highest subjective threat and US-contingency. HA individuals demonstrated higher threat ratings in general than LA individuals.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Hur, J., Stockbridge, M. D., Fox, A. S. & Shackman, A. J. Dispositional negativity, cognition, and anxiety disorders: An integrative translational neuroscience framework. Progress in Brain Research, (in press). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Davis M, Walker DL, Miles L, Grillon C. Phasic vs sustained fear in rats and humans: role of the extended amygdala in fear vs anxiety. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010;35:105–135. doi: 10.1038/npp.2009.109. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Perusini JN, Fanselow MS. Neurobehavioral perspectives on the distinction between fear and anxiety. Learn. Memory. 2015;22:417–425. doi: 10.1101/lm.039180.115. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fox AS, Shackman AJ. The central extended amygdala in fear and anxiety: Closing the gap between mechanistic and neuroimaging research. Neurosci. Lett. 2019;693:58–67. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2017.11.056. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shackman AJ, Fox AS. Contributions of the Central Extended Amygdala to Fear and Anxiety. J. Neurosci. 2016;36:8050–8063. doi: 10.1523/jneurosci.0982-16.2016. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types