躲闪的眼睛:威胁条件反射中不确定性不耐受对凝视行为的影响

IF 3.1 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Collabra-Psychology Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1525/collabra.82229
Claudia Rodriguez-Sobstel, Shannon Wake, H. Dodd, E. McSorley, C. V. van Reekum, Jayne Morriss
{"title":"躲闪的眼睛:威胁条件反射中不确定性不耐受对凝视行为的影响","authors":"Claudia Rodriguez-Sobstel, Shannon Wake, H. Dodd, E. McSorley, C. V. van Reekum, Jayne Morriss","doi":"10.1525/collabra.82229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Previous research has demonstrated that individuals with high levels of Intolerance of Uncertainty (IU) have difficulty updating threat associations to safety associations. Notably, prior research has focused on measuring IU-related differences in threat and safety learning using arousal-based measures such as skin conductance response. Here we assessed whether IU-related differences in threat and safety learning could be captured using eye-tracking metrics linked with gaze behaviours such as dwelling and scanning. Participants (N = 144) completed self-report questionnaires assessing levels of IU and trait anxiety. Eye movements were then recorded during each conditioning phase: acquisition, extinction learning, and extinction retention. Fixation count and fixation duration served as indices of conditioned responding. Patterns of threat and safety learning typically reported for physiology and self-report were observed for the fixation count and fixation duration metrics during acquisition and to some extent in extinction learning, but not for extinction retention. There was little evidence for specific associations between IU and disrupted safety learning (e.g., greater differential responses to the threat vs. safe cues during extinction learning and retention). While there was tentative evidence that IU was associated with shorter fixation durations (e.g., scanning) to threat vs. safe cues during extinction retention, this effect did not remain after controlling for trait anxiety. IU and trait anxiety similarly predicted greater fixation count and shorter fixation durations overall during extinction learning, and greater fixation count overall during extinction retention. IU further predicted shorter fixation durations overall during extinction retention. However, the only IU-based effect that remained significant after controlling for trait anxiety was that of fixation duration overall during threat extinction learning. Our results inform models of anxiety, particularly in relation to how individual differences modulate gaze behaviour during threat conditioning.","PeriodicalId":45791,"journal":{"name":"Collabra-Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Shifty Eyes: The Impact of Intolerance of Uncertainty on Gaze Behaviour During Threat Conditioning\",\"authors\":\"Claudia Rodriguez-Sobstel, Shannon Wake, H. Dodd, E. McSorley, C. V. van Reekum, Jayne Morriss\",\"doi\":\"10.1525/collabra.82229\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Previous research has demonstrated that individuals with high levels of Intolerance of Uncertainty (IU) have difficulty updating threat associations to safety associations. Notably, prior research has focused on measuring IU-related differences in threat and safety learning using arousal-based measures such as skin conductance response. Here we assessed whether IU-related differences in threat and safety learning could be captured using eye-tracking metrics linked with gaze behaviours such as dwelling and scanning. Participants (N = 144) completed self-report questionnaires assessing levels of IU and trait anxiety. Eye movements were then recorded during each conditioning phase: acquisition, extinction learning, and extinction retention. Fixation count and fixation duration served as indices of conditioned responding. Patterns of threat and safety learning typically reported for physiology and self-report were observed for the fixation count and fixation duration metrics during acquisition and to some extent in extinction learning, but not for extinction retention. There was little evidence for specific associations between IU and disrupted safety learning (e.g., greater differential responses to the threat vs. safe cues during extinction learning and retention). While there was tentative evidence that IU was associated with shorter fixation durations (e.g., scanning) to threat vs. safe cues during extinction retention, this effect did not remain after controlling for trait anxiety. IU and trait anxiety similarly predicted greater fixation count and shorter fixation durations overall during extinction learning, and greater fixation count overall during extinction retention. IU further predicted shorter fixation durations overall during extinction retention. However, the only IU-based effect that remained significant after controlling for trait anxiety was that of fixation duration overall during threat extinction learning. Our results inform models of anxiety, particularly in relation to how individual differences modulate gaze behaviour during threat conditioning.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45791,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Collabra-Psychology\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Collabra-Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.82229\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Collabra-Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.82229","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

先前的研究表明,具有高水平不确定性不耐受(IU)的个体难以将威胁关联更新为安全关联。值得注意的是,先前的研究主要集中在使用基于唤醒的测量方法(如皮肤电导反应)来测量iu相关的威胁和安全学习差异。在这里,我们评估了是否可以使用与凝视行为(如停留和扫描)相关的眼动追踪指标来捕捉iu相关的威胁和安全学习差异。参与者(N = 144)完成了评估IU和特质焦虑水平的自我报告问卷。然后记录每个条件作用阶段的眼球运动:习得、消去学习和消去保留。注视次数和注视时间作为条件反应的指标。在习得期间的注视计数和注视持续时间指标中,以及在一定程度上在灭绝学习中观察到典型的生理和自我报告中报告的威胁和安全学习模式,但在灭绝保留中没有观察到。几乎没有证据表明IU与中断的安全学习之间存在特定关联(例如,在消失学习和保留期间,对威胁和安全线索的反应差异更大)。虽然有初步证据表明,在灭绝保留期间,IU与对威胁和安全线索的注视时间(例如扫描)较短有关,但在控制特质焦虑后,这种影响并不存在。IU和特质焦虑同样预测了在消失学习期间总体上更高的注视计数和更短的注视持续时间,在消失保留期间总体上更高的注视计数。IU进一步预测,在消失保留期间,整体注视时间较短。然而,在控制特质焦虑后,唯一的基于u的影响仍然显著的是威胁消除学习期间的整体注视时间。我们的研究结果为焦虑模型提供了信息,特别是与个体差异如何在威胁条件反射中调节凝视行为有关的模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Shifty Eyes: The Impact of Intolerance of Uncertainty on Gaze Behaviour During Threat Conditioning
Previous research has demonstrated that individuals with high levels of Intolerance of Uncertainty (IU) have difficulty updating threat associations to safety associations. Notably, prior research has focused on measuring IU-related differences in threat and safety learning using arousal-based measures such as skin conductance response. Here we assessed whether IU-related differences in threat and safety learning could be captured using eye-tracking metrics linked with gaze behaviours such as dwelling and scanning. Participants (N = 144) completed self-report questionnaires assessing levels of IU and trait anxiety. Eye movements were then recorded during each conditioning phase: acquisition, extinction learning, and extinction retention. Fixation count and fixation duration served as indices of conditioned responding. Patterns of threat and safety learning typically reported for physiology and self-report were observed for the fixation count and fixation duration metrics during acquisition and to some extent in extinction learning, but not for extinction retention. There was little evidence for specific associations between IU and disrupted safety learning (e.g., greater differential responses to the threat vs. safe cues during extinction learning and retention). While there was tentative evidence that IU was associated with shorter fixation durations (e.g., scanning) to threat vs. safe cues during extinction retention, this effect did not remain after controlling for trait anxiety. IU and trait anxiety similarly predicted greater fixation count and shorter fixation durations overall during extinction learning, and greater fixation count overall during extinction retention. IU further predicted shorter fixation durations overall during extinction retention. However, the only IU-based effect that remained significant after controlling for trait anxiety was that of fixation duration overall during threat extinction learning. Our results inform models of anxiety, particularly in relation to how individual differences modulate gaze behaviour during threat conditioning.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Collabra-Psychology
Collabra-Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
47
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Collabra: Psychology has 7 sections representing the broad field of psychology, and a highlighted focus area of “Methodology and Research Practice.” Are: Cognitive Psychology Social Psychology Personality Psychology Clinical Psychology Developmental Psychology Organizational Behavior Methodology and Research Practice.
期刊最新文献
Characterizing Human Habits in the Lab. Breaking Ban: Belgium’s Ineffective Gambling Law Regulation of Video Game Loot Boxes Revisiting the Differential Centrality of Experiential and Material Purchases to the Self: Replication and Extension of Carter and Gilovich (2012) Cyberloafing: Investigating the Importance and Implications of New and Known Predictors Psychometric Properties of the Chilean Version of the Oviedo Grit Scale
×
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