Search

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy utilizes the manipulation of eye movements to reduce affective distress during fear-exposure. Animal research recently suggested a potential neural mechanism underlying these effects, by which increased activity of the superior colliculus (SC), mediating visual attention, increases the inhibition of the basolateral amygdala (BLA), mediating defensive plasticity. We tested such mechanism in forty healthy humans using a multiple-day single-cue fear conditioning and extinction paradigm. The activity of the SC during extinction was experimentally manipulated by eye movements, as half of the participants executed saccadic eye movements (n = 20; major SC involvement), while the other half executed smooth eye pursuits (n = 20; minor SC involvement). Amygdala-mediated fear-potentiated startle responses and fear bradycardia, as well as threat expectancy was analyzed. Saccadic eye movements facilitated the extinction of fear bradycardia and fear-potentiated startle responses. Higher saccadic accuracy and range correlated with reduced fear-potentiated startle. However, during extinction recall, fear-potentiated startle and fear bradycardia resurged and partly reached levels obtained after fear acquisition. Threat expectancy was not affected by different eye movements and was not elevated during extinction recall. Within limitations, results support an inhibitory SC-BLA pathway in humans by which eye movements may reduce low-level defensive responding, but not threat expectancy. Yet, manipulating eye movements during extinction learning seems to impair extinction recall for behavioral and physiological defensive response indices. Thus, increasing SC activity might enhance initial efficacy of exposure treatment, but additional strategies seem necessary for sustained fear attenuation.

It is hypothesized that the ability to discriminate between threat and safety is impaired in individuals with high dispositional negativity, resulting in maladaptive behavior. A large body of research investigated differential learning during fear conditioning and extinction protocols depending on individual differences in intolerance of uncertainty (IU) and trait anxiety (TA), two closely-related dimensions of dispositional negativity, with heterogenous results. These might be due to varying degrees of induced threat/safety uncertainty. Here, we compared two groups with high vs. low IU/TA during periods of low (instructed fear acquisition) and high levels of uncertainty (delayed non-instructed extinction training and reinstatement). Dependent variables comprised subjective (US expectancy, valence, arousal), psychophysiological (skin conductance response, SCR, and startle blink), and neural (fMRI BOLD) measures of threat responding. During fear acquisition, we found strong threat/safety discrimination for both groups. During early extinction (high uncertainty), the low IU/TA group showed an increased physiological response to the safety signal, resulting in a lack of CS discrimination. In contrast, the high IU/TA group showed strong initial threat/safety discrimination in physiology, lacking discriminative learning on startle, and reduced neural activation in regions linked to threat/safety processing throughout extinction training indicating sustained but non-adaptive and rigid responding. Similar neural patterns were found after the reinstatement test. Taken together, we provide evidence that high dispositional negativity, as indicated here by IU and TA, is associated with greater responding to threat cues during the beginning of delayed extinction, and, thus, demonstrates altered learning patterns under changing environments.

It is hypothesized that the ability to discriminate between threat and safety is impaired in individuals with high dispositional negativity, resulting in maladaptive behavior. A large body of research investigated differential learning during fear conditioning and extinction protocols depending on individual differences in intolerance of uncertainty (IU) and trait anxiety (TA), two closely-related dimensions of dispositional negativity, with heterogenous results. These might be due to varying degrees of induced threat/safety uncertainty. Here, we compared two groups with high vs. low IU/TA during periods of low (instructed fear acquisition) and high levels of uncertainty (delayed non-instructed extinction training and reinstatement). Dependent variables comprised subjective (US expectancy, valence, arousal), psychophysiological (skin conductance response, SCR, and startle blink), and neural (fMRI BOLD) measures of threat responding. During fear acquisition we found strong threat/safety discrimination for both groups. During early extinction (high uncertainty), the low IU/TA group showed an increased physiological response to the safety signal, resulting in a lack of CS discrimination. In contrast, the high IU/TA group showed strong initial threat/safety discrimination in physiology, lacking discriminative learning on startle, and reduced neural activation in regions linked to threat/safety processing throughout extinction training indicating sustained but non-adaptive and rigid responding. Similar neural patterns were found after the reinstatement test. Taken together, we provide evidence that high dispositional negativity, as indicated here by IU and TA, is associated with persistent responding to instructed threat cues despite increased ambiguity of the signaled threat and safety and, thus, impaired ability to adapt to changing environments.

During fear conditioning, a cue (CS) signals an inevitable distal threat (US) and evokes a conditioned response that can be described as attentive immobility (freezing). The organism remains motionless and monitors the source of danger while startle responses are potentiated, indicating a state of defensive hypervigilance. Although in animals vagally mediated fear bradycardia is also reliably observed under such circumstances, results are mixed in human fear conditioning. Using a single-cue fear conditioning and extinction protocol, we tested cardiac reactivity and startle potentiation indexing low-level defensive strategies in a fear-conditioned (n = 40; paired presentations of CS and US) compared with a non-conditioned control group (n = 40; unpaired presentations of CS and US). Additionally, we assessed shock expectancy ratings on a trial-by-trial basis indexing declarative knowledge of the previous contingencies. Half of each group underwent extinction under sham or active transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS), serving as additional proof of concept. We found stronger cardiac deceleration during CS presentation in the fear learning relative to the control group. This learned fear bradycardia was positively correlated with conditioned startle potentiation but not with declarative knowledge of CS-US contingencies. TVNS abolished differences in heart rate changes between both groups and removed the significant correlation between late cardiac deceleration and startle potentiation in the fear learning group. Results suggest, fear-conditioned cues evoke attentive immobility in humans, characterized by cardiac deceleration and startle potentiation. Such defensive response pattern is elicited by cues predicting inevitable distal threat and resembles conditioned fear responses observed in rodents.