Psychoneurometric operationalization of threat sensitivity: Relations with clinical symptom and physiological response criteria

Abstract

The NIMH RDoC initiative calls for the incorporation of neurobiological approaches and findings into conceptions of mental health problems through a focus on biobehavioral constructs investigated across multiple domains of measurement (units of analysis). Though the constructs in the RDoC system are characterized in ‘process terms’ (i.e., as functional concepts with brain and behavioral referents), these constructs can also be framed as dispositions (i.e., as dimensions of variation in biobehavioral functioning across individuals). Focusing on one key RDoC construct, acute threat or ‘fear’, the current paper illustrates a construct-oriented psychoneurometric strategy to operationalizing this construct in individual-difference terms—as threat sensitivity (THT+). Utilizing data from 454 adult participants, we demonstrate empirically that: 1) a scale measure of THT+ design to tap general fear/fearlessness predicts effectively to relevant clinical problems (i.e., fear disorder symptoms), 2) this scale measure shows reliable associations with physiological indices of acute reactivity to aversive visual stimuli, and 3) a cross-domain factor reflecting the intersection of scale and physiological indicators of THT+ predicts effectively to both clinical and neurophysiological criterion measures. Results illustrate how the psychoneurometric approach can be used to create a dimensional index of a biobehavioral trait construct, in this case THT+, which can serve as a bridge between phenomena in domains of psychopathology and neurobiology. Implications and future directions are discussed with reference to the RDoC initiative and existing report-based conceptions of psycholological traits.

Methodological issues in the use of individual brain measures to index trait liabilities: The example of noise-probe P3

“…Drislane et al (2013), citing Graham (1979), characterized this process as a “cortical call-to-arms,” that is, a specific allocation of cognitive-attentional resources for purposes of ascertaining the need to mobilize for evasive action. This interpretation of enhanced P3 response to noxious noise probes in relation to THT dovetails with other work demonstrating enhanced somatic and visceral responding (e.g., startle-blink, corrugator muscle, heart rate) to aversive visual stimuli in high-THT participants (Vaidyanathan et al, 2009; Yancey et al, 2016). …”

“…The NIMH RDoC framework calls for investigation of basic biobehavioral processes relevant to differing forms of mental illness using multiple units of analysis, from molecular (genomic) variables to overt behavioral measures. Two RDoC matrix constructs have particular relevance for understanding psychopathology: inhibitory control and threat sensitivity (Blair, White, Meffert, & Hwang, 2014; Patrick, Durbin, & Moser, 2012; Patrick & Drislane, 2015; Yancey, Venables, Hicks, & Patrick, 2013; Yancey, Venables, & Patrick, 2016). Weak inhibitory control plays a role in various externalizing conditions, including conduct disorder, adult antisocial behavior, and substance use disorders (Krueger, Hicks, Patrick, Carlson, Iacono, & McGue, 2002), whereas threat sensitivity has been implicated in fear-related internalizing conditions such as social phobia, specific phobia, and panic disorder (B. D. Nelson et al, 2013).…”

“…When operationalized in terms of scores on this fear/fearlessness dimension, variations in threat sensitivity are independent of (i.e., uncorrelated with) variations in inhibitory control, quantified as trait disinhibition (L. D. Nelson et al, 2016; Venables, Sellbom, et al, 2015). High scores on this fear/fearlessness dimension have been found to be related to anxiety disorders of various types, particularly those involving context-bound fear (L. D. Nelson et al, 2016; Yancey et al, 2016); low scores on this dimension, by contrast, are associated with affective-interpersonal (“Factor 1”) symptoms of psychopathy (Patrick & Bernat, 2009; Patrick & Drislane, 2015). …”

Endophenotype best practices

“…The value of the endophenotype is not to validate a DSM diagnosis, but to provide a biologically informed alternative avenue to uncover etiological factors relevant to the types of dysfunction those with a diagnosis experience. As Patrick and colleagues have emphasized (Patrick et al, 2013; Yancey, Venables, & Patrick, 2016), it is not reasonable to expect measures of constructs from different domains, such as a psychophysiological variable and a clinical interview assessment, to show more than a modest association, and correlations smaller than .20 are commonplace (W. G. Iacono, 2014b; W G Iacono, 2016).…”

The Research Domain Criteria framework: transitioning from dimensional systems to integrating neuroscience and psychopathology

“…RDoC is not designed to replace DSM in the near future. Yancey et al [17] built an exceptionally large database of self-report and biological measures that was carefully chosen to reflect clinically important RDoC constructs, pursued a promising validation strategy, and found moderate associations with more conventional symptom measures [17]. Their study exemplifies one intriguing means of pursuing the RDoC framework.…”