Nonconscious fear is quickly acquired but swiftly forgotten

Raio, Candace M.; Carmel, David; Carrasco, Marisa; Phelps, Elizabeth A.

doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.04.023

Cited by 104 publications

(143 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

121

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present data conceptually extend our previous study by concluding that new associations can be acquired at a very basic level of information processing, where brief exposures of visual cues can form significant analgesic and hyperalgesic responses. In contrast to studies of subliminal fear conditioning in humans, with demonstrated effects on autonomic and motor responses (11)(12)(13)(14), our study suggests that low levels of the brain's hierarchical organization are susceptible for learning that affects higher-order cognitive processes (as our primary outcome measured subjective pain reports). Theories of placebo analgesia have posited that placebo responses are the result of top-down expectations and predictions of pain (relief), integrated with bottom-up sensory signals at multiple levels of the neural hierarchy (23,25,26).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 95%

“…During very rapid exposures, such as the masked visual cues in our experiment, it is possible that threat-related cues are more salient than safety-related signals, representing a valuable evolutionary adaptation to challenges in the environment. The literature on nonconscious processing of fear reveals robust autonomic and cerebral activations in response to subliminal exposures of feared stimuli (12,14,31,32), supporting the idea that aversive cues are rapidly processed in neural circuits independent of conscious awareness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…On one hand, associative learning with subliminally presented stimuli has been demonstrated [e.g., by Degonda and colleagues (5)]; on the other hand, a sizeable literature indicates that pain conditioning is mediated by conscious expectations (6-10). Studies of fear learning in humans suggest that emotional contingencies can be acquired nonconsciously, as demonstrated by conditioned changes in autonomic and motor responses (11)(12)(13)(14). In addition to evidence for conditioning of low-level physiological responses, a recent literature challenges the idea that nonconscious processing stops at an early perceptual level (4), suggesting that higher-order cognitive representations, such as meaning and goal pursuits, can be acquired nonconsciously (15).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Classical conditioning of analgesic and hyperalgesic pain responses without conscious awareness

Jensen

Kirsch

Odmalm

et al. 2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

115

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pain reduction and enhancement can be produced by means of conditioning procedures, yet the role of awareness during the acquisition stage of classical conditioning is unknown. We used psychophysical measures to establish whether conditioned analgesic and hyperalgesic responses could be acquired by unseen (subliminally presented) stimuli. A 2 × 2 factorial design, including subliminal/supraliminal exposures of conditioning stimuli (CS) during acquisition/extinction, was used. Results showed significant analgesic and hyperalgesic responses (P < 0.001), and responses were independent of CS awareness, as subliminal/supraliminal cues during acquisition/extinction led to comparable outcomes. The effect was significantly larger for hyperalgesic than analgesic responses (P < 0.001). Results demonstrate that conscious awareness of the CS is not required during either acquisition or extinction of conditioned analgesia or hyperalgesia. Our results support the notion that nonconscious stimuli have a pervasive effect on human brain function and behavior and may affect learning of complex cognitive processes such as psychologically mediated analgesic and hyperalgesic responses.classical conditioning | awareness | consciousness | placebo | nocebo I t has been well established that pain can be altered by associative learning procedures (1-3). In the present study, we sought to establish whether conditioned analgesic and hyperalgesic responses could be acquired by unseen (subliminally presented) stimuli.The human brain can process sensory stimuli outside of conscious awareness (4), but it is not clear to what extent learning can take place when we are not aware of the associations being made. On one hand, associative learning with subliminally presented stimuli has been demonstrated [e.g., by Degonda and colleagues (5)]; on the other hand, a sizeable literature indicates that pain conditioning is mediated by conscious expectations (6-10). Studies of fear learning in humans suggest that emotional contingencies can be acquired nonconsciously, as demonstrated by conditioned changes in autonomic and motor responses (11)(12)(13)(14). In addition to evidence for conditioning of low-level physiological responses, a recent literature challenges the idea that nonconscious processing stops at an early perceptual level (4), suggesting that higher-order cognitive representations, such as meaning and goal pursuits, can be acquired nonconsciously (15). Moreover, findings from neuroimaging studies show that nonconscious stimuli have extensive representations in the human brain, activating a large number of cortical areas (16-18) at frequency bands previously seen as markers of conscious awareness (19). Taken together, these results suggest that nonconscious stimuli have a pervasive effect on human brain function and behavior and may affect learning of complex cognitive processes such as psychologically mediated pain responses.In a previous study, we found that consciously conditioned analgesic and hyperalgesic pain responses could be activate...

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 95%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Classical conditioning of analgesic and hyperalgesic pain responses without conscious awareness

Jensen

Kirsch

Odmalm

et al. 2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

115

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, behavioral studies in healthy humans have found that conditioned or unconditioned threats presented subliminally elicit physiological responses without the person being aware of the stimulus (95-99) and without reporting any particular feeling, even when instructed to try to introspect about feelings (98). The conditioning process can also be carried out nonconsciously (99)(100)(101) and without awareness of the CS-US contingency (102). Acquisition effects are sometimes weaker (101), but this is likely attributable to the degraded input required to prevent awareness than to the limits of nonconscious processing per se because complex cognitive and social processes that control human behavior are often carried out without conscious awareness of their occurrence in daily life (103)(104)(105).…”

Section: Nonconscious Conditioned Fear In Humansmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The conditioning process can also be carried out nonconsciously (99)(100)(101) and without awareness of the CS-US contingency (102). Acquisition effects are sometimes weaker (101), but this is likely attributable to the degraded input required to prevent awareness than to the limits of nonconscious processing per se because complex cognitive and social processes that control human behavior are often carried out without conscious awareness of their occurrence in daily life (103)(104)(105). Also, functional imaging studies have shown that the amygdala is activated when conditioned or unconditioned threats are presented with or without CS awareness (97,98,101,(106)(107)(108)(109)(110)(111)(112).…”

Section: Nonconscious Conditioned Fear In Humansmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coming to terms with fear

LeDoux

2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

741

555

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The brain mechanisms of fear have been studied extensively using Pavlovian fear conditioning, a procedure that allows exploration of how the brain learns about and later detects and responds to threats. However, mechanisms that detect and respond to threats are not the same as those that give rise to conscious fear. This is an important distinction because symptoms based on conscious and nonconscious processes may be vulnerable to different predisposing factors and may also be treatable with different approaches in people who suffer from uncontrolled fear or anxiety. A conception of so-called fear conditioning in terms of circuits that operate nonconsciously, but that indirectly contribute to conscious fear, is proposed as way forward.Pavlovian conditioning | emotion | survival circuits | global organismic states | consciousness Hunger, like, anger, fear, and so forth, is a phenomenon that can be known only by introspection. When applied to another. . .species, it is merely a guess about the possible nature of the animal's subjective state.Nico Tinbergen (1) Neuroscientists use "fear" to explain the empirical relation between two events: for example, rats freeze when they see a light previously associated with electric shock. Psychiatrists, psychologists, and most citizens, on the other hand, use. . ."fear" to name a conscious experience of those who dislike driving over high bridges or encountering large spiders. These two uses suggest. . .several fear states, each with its own genetics, incentives, physiological patterns, and behavioral profiles.Jerome Kagan (2) M y research focuses on how the brain detects and responds to threats, and I have long argued that these mechanisms are distinct from those that make possible the conscious feeling of fear that can occur when one is in danger (3-6). However, I, and others, have called the brain system that detects and responds to threats the fear system. This was a mistake that has led to much confusion. Most people who are not in the field naturally assume that the job of a fear system is to make conscious feelings of fear, because the common meaning of fear is the feeling of being afraid. Although research on the brain mechanisms that detect and respond to threats in animals has important implications for understanding how the human brain feels fear, it is not because the threat detection and defense responses mechanisms are fear mechanisms. It is instead because these nonconscious mechanisms initiate responses in the brain and body that indirectly contribute to conscious fear.In this article, I focus on Pavlovian fear conditioning, a procedure that has been used extensively to study the so-called fear system. I will propose and defend a different way of talking about this research, one that focuses on the actual subject matter and data (threat detection and defense responses) and that is less likely to compel the interpretation that conscious states of fear underlie defense responses elicited by conditioned threats. It will not be easy to give up the term fear condi...

show abstract

Implicit but not explicit extinction to threat‐conditioned stimulus prevents spontaneous recovery of threat‐potentiated startle responses in humans

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionIt has long been posited that threat learning operates and forms under an affective and a cognitive learning system that is supported by different brain circuits. A primary drawback in exposure‐based therapies is the high rate of relapse that occurs when higher order areas fail to inhibit responses driven by the defensive circuit. It has been shown that implicit exposure of fearful stimuli leads to a long‐lasting reduction in avoidance behavior in patients with phobia. Despite the potential benefits of this approach in the treatment of phobias and posttraumatic stress disorder, implicit extinction is still underinvestigated.MethodsTwo groups of healthy participants were threat conditioned. The following day, extinction training was conducted using a stereoscope. One group of participants was explicitly exposed with the threat‐conditioned image, while the other group was implicitly exposed using a continuous flash suppression (CFS) technique. On the third day, we tested the spontaneous recovery of defensive responses using explicit presentations of the images.ResultsOn the third day, we found that only the implicit extinction group showed reduced spontaneous recovery of defensive responses to the threat‐conditioned stimulus, measured by threat‐potentiated startle responses but not by the electrodermal activity.ConclusionOur results suggest that implicit extinction using CFS might facilitate the modulation of the affective component of fearful memories, attenuating its expression after 24 hr. The limitations of the CFS technique using threatful stimuli urge the development of new strategies to improve implicit presentations and circumvent such limitations. Our study encourages further investigations of implicit extinction as a potential therapeutic target to further advance exposure‐based psychotherapies.

show abstract

Nonconscious fear is quickly acquired but swiftly forgotten

Cited by 104 publications

References 10 publications

Classical conditioning of analgesic and hyperalgesic pain responses without conscious awareness

Classical conditioning of analgesic and hyperalgesic pain responses without conscious awareness

Coming to terms with fear

Implicit but not explicit extinction to threat‐conditioned stimulus prevents spontaneous recovery of threat‐potentiated startle responses in humans

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About