Stimulus processing bias in anxiety-related fear generalisation: drift-diffusion modelling and subgroups differences.

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognition & Emotion Pub Date : 2024-11-22 DOI:10.1080/02699931.2024.2431152
Donghuan Zhang, Min Fan, Biyao Zhang, Yixuan Feng, Gao Yu, Wei Chen, Feng Biao, Xifu Zheng
{"title":"Stimulus processing bias in anxiety-related fear generalisation: drift-diffusion modelling and subgroups differences.","authors":"Donghuan Zhang, Min Fan, Biyao Zhang, Yixuan Feng, Gao Yu, Wei Chen, Feng Biao, Xifu Zheng","doi":"10.1080/02699931.2024.2431152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In fear differential conditioning, stimuli that resemble the conditioned stimulus (CS+) are more likely to trigger fear responses. Excessive fear responses on stimuli not like CS + are often associated with anxiety. However, the threat judgments process and how this process manifests itself differently in subgroups with different generalisation rule applications, is unclear. This study examines whether anxiety biases the threat decision process in fear generalisation paradigm and whether subgroups characterised by different generalisation gradients was interpreted differently by drift-diffusion model. We gathered behavioural data through a binary fear generalisation judgment task and clustered participants based on their responses. Reaction time distributions and individual scale scores were analyzed using the hierarchical drift-diffusion model. The model results suggested that similarity and state anxiety facilitated evidence-gathering processes that favoured \"threat\" judgments, but at the same time, state anxiety weakened the effect of stimulus similarity as evidence. Further cluster analyses revealed that this effect of anxiety on threat judgments only held true for specific subgroups of participants. This pioneering computational modelling effort in fear generalisation underscores the significant role of strategy preference and its complex interaction with anxiety in shaping stimulus processing.</p>","PeriodicalId":48412,"journal":{"name":"Cognition & Emotion","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition & Emotion","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2024.2431152","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In fear differential conditioning, stimuli that resemble the conditioned stimulus (CS+) are more likely to trigger fear responses. Excessive fear responses on stimuli not like CS + are often associated with anxiety. However, the threat judgments process and how this process manifests itself differently in subgroups with different generalisation rule applications, is unclear. This study examines whether anxiety biases the threat decision process in fear generalisation paradigm and whether subgroups characterised by different generalisation gradients was interpreted differently by drift-diffusion model. We gathered behavioural data through a binary fear generalisation judgment task and clustered participants based on their responses. Reaction time distributions and individual scale scores were analyzed using the hierarchical drift-diffusion model. The model results suggested that similarity and state anxiety facilitated evidence-gathering processes that favoured "threat" judgments, but at the same time, state anxiety weakened the effect of stimulus similarity as evidence. Further cluster analyses revealed that this effect of anxiety on threat judgments only held true for specific subgroups of participants. This pioneering computational modelling effort in fear generalisation underscores the significant role of strategy preference and its complex interaction with anxiety in shaping stimulus processing.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
焦虑相关恐惧泛化中的刺激加工偏差:漂移-扩散模型和亚组差异。
在恐惧差异条件反射中,与条件刺激(CS+)相似的刺激物更容易引发恐惧反应。对与 CS+ 不相似的刺激产生的过度恐惧反应往往与焦虑有关。然而,威胁判断过程以及这一过程如何在应用不同泛化规则的亚群体中表现出不同,目前尚不清楚。本研究探讨了在恐惧泛化范式中,焦虑是否会导致威胁判断过程出现偏差,以及漂移扩散模型是否会对具有不同泛化梯度特征的亚组做出不同的解释。我们通过二元恐惧泛化判断任务收集行为数据,并根据参与者的反应对他们进行分组。我们使用分层漂移扩散模型对反应时间分布和个体量表得分进行了分析。模型结果表明,相似性和状态焦虑促进了有利于 "威胁 "判断的证据收集过程,但与此同时,状态焦虑削弱了刺激物相似性作为证据的效果。进一步的聚类分析显示,焦虑对威胁判断的这种影响只适用于特定的参与者亚群。这一开创性的恐惧泛化计算建模工作强调了策略偏好及其与焦虑的复杂交互作用在塑造刺激处理过程中的重要作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cognition & Emotion
Cognition & Emotion PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
90
期刊介绍: Cognition & Emotion is devoted to the study of emotion, especially to those aspects of emotion related to cognitive processes. The journal aims to bring together work on emotion undertaken by researchers in cognitive, social, clinical, and developmental psychology, neuropsychology, and cognitive science. Examples of topics appropriate for the journal include the role of cognitive processes in emotion elicitation, regulation, and expression; the impact of emotion on attention, memory, learning, motivation, judgements, and decisions.
期刊最新文献
Stimulus processing bias in anxiety-related fear generalisation: drift-diffusion modelling and subgroups differences. The appraisal patterns and response types of enthusiasm: a comparison with joy and hope. Persistent negative self-referent thinking in the context of depression: examining the role of temperament and emotion regulation. Attentional bias towards task-irrelevant threatening faces reduces working memory updating efficiency in social anxiety: evidence from the n-back task combining with eye-tracking. Impact of awe on topic interest and recognition memory for information in planetarium films.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1