Event‐related potentials to threat of predictable and unpredictable shock

Abstract

Cognitive affective neuroscience tasks that are straightforward to administer, measure key constructs of interest, and can be used in different lab settings and with multiple psychophysiological methods can lead to a more complete understanding of experimental effects. The no-threat, predictable threat, unpredictable threat (NPU-threat) task assesses constructs of interest to both clinical and basic affective science literatures, is relatively brief to administer, and has been used across labs with a number of different measurements (e.g., startle eyeblink, fMRI, corrugator response, subjective ratings). ERPs provide another means of assessing neurobiological reactivity during the NPU-threat task, but to date such measures have been underutilized. That is, no study has yet evaluated cue-elicited ERPs in the NPU-threat task. Here, cue-elicited ERPs were assessed in 78 participants who completed a version of the NPU-threat task previously shown to reliably moderate startle eyeblink amplitudes. Results showed larger P2 amplitudes for unpredictable versus predictable trials, increased P3s and late positive potentials for threatening versus no-threat trials, as well as larger stimulus preceding negativities for threatening versus no-threat trials (driven primarily by predictable threat cues). In line with prior work, we observed enhanced startle eyeblink for threatening versus no-threat trials and for unpredictable compared to predictable threat interstimulus intervals. In addition, the probe-elicited P3 was suppressed for predictable and unpredictable compared to no-threat trials. Therefore, cue-elicited ERPs, which can be recorded alongside other measures in the NPU-threat task (e.g., startle), may provide useful indices of temporally distinct stages of predictable and unpredictable threat processing.

Threat-Induced Alterations in Cognition and Associations with Dysregulated Behavior

“…Research also suggests that, compared to relatively more predictable threats, less predictable threats can be particularly aversive and as such associated with greater defensive responding, as measured by fear potentiated startle (Schmitz & Grillon, 2012). In accordance with previous literatures, we expected the unpredictable threat condition, relative to predictable and no-threat conditions, to increase defensive responding (startle potentiation; Baas, Kenemans, Böcker, & Verbaten, 2002;Bennet, Dickmann, & Larson, 2018;MacNamara & Barley, 2018) and lead to greater disruptions in neurocognitive indicators of cognitive control (i.e., reduced congruence N2 and P3) across participants. Similarly, we also expected that the unpredictable threat condition would be associated with the poorest performance on behavioral indicators of cognitive control (slower RT and decreased accuracy) in the flanker task (Fan, McCandliss, Sommer, Raz, & Posner, 2002).…”

Aversive anticipations modulate electrocortical correlates of decision-making and reward reversal learning, but not behavioral performance

“…As in previous research, we predicted that an instructed threat context would be rated as more unpleasant, arousing, and threatening compared to the safety condition (Bublatzky et al, 2010(Bublatzky et al, , 2014Costa et al, 2015). On the neural level, we expected enhanced late positive potentials to instructed threat compared to safety conditions over parieto-occipital visual processing areas as indicators for selective attention and elaborate stimulus 10.3389/fnbeh.2022.908454 processing (Bublatzky and Schupp, 2012;MacNamara and Barley, 2018).…”

Intolerance of uncertainty and physiological responses during instructed uncertain threat: a multi-lab investigation

“…Across both lab sites, we observed a lack of IU-related effects for the orbicularis oculi measure during the instructed uncertain threat tasks. Previous research has reported extensive variability in IU-related profiles for the orbicularis oculi measure during instructed uncertain threat tasks (Gorka et al, 2014;Morriss, Bennett, et al, 2021;Morriss et al, 2020;Nelson et al, 2016;Nelson & Shankman, 2011), including null effects (MacNamara & Barley, 2018;Mertens & Morriss, 2021).…”

“…In particular, a recent review (Tanovic, Gee, et al, 2018) highlighted that there were mixed findings for how IU modulates anticipatory physiological responses during instructed uncertain threat (typically also referred to as risk, irreducible uncertainty, first-order uncertainty, expected uncertainty (Angela & Dayan, 2005;Kobayashi & Hsu, 2017)). For example, during tasks where participants are instructed about the (un)predictability of aversive stimuli such as electric shocks or negative pictures, some psychophysiology studies report IU-related effects (Gorka, Lieberman, Nelson, Sarapas, & Shankman, 2014;Morriss, Bell, Biagi, Johnstone, & van Reekum, 2021;Morriss, Bennett, & Larson, 2021;Morriss et al, 2020;Nelson, Liu, Sarapas, & Shankman, 2016;Nelson & Shankman, 2011;Somerville et al, 2013;Tanovic, Pruessner, & Joormann, 2018), while others do not (Grupe & Nitschke, 2011;MacNamara & Barley, 2018;Mertens & Morriss, 2021;Morriss, 2019;Morriss, Bell, et al, 2021). Furthermore, IU-related effects in instructed uncertain threat tasks vary considerably within and across physiological measures.…”