View in EDS

Semantic Relevance of a Conditioned Stimulus Does Not Enhance Fear Extinction Beyond Temporal Proximity to the Unconditioned Stimulus.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Semantic Relevance of a Conditioned Stimulus Does Not Enhance Fear Extinction Beyond Temporal Proximity to the Unconditioned Stimulus.
Authors: Ney, Luke J. (AUTHOR), Wang, Yi (AUTHOR), Eales, Kobi (AUTHOR), Anderson, Joe (AUTHOR), Jarvis, Madeline (AUTHOR), Lipp, Ottmar V. (AUTHOR)
Source: Psychophysiology. Jun2026, Vol. 63 Issue 6, p1-13. 13p.
Subjects: Extinction (Psychology), Exposure therapy, Post-traumatic stress disorder, Classical conditioning, Stimulus & response (Psychology), Emotional conditioning, Resemblance (Philosophy)
Abstract: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) memory processes are often investigated using fear conditioning experiments. Based on the premises of Ehlers and Clark's cognitive model of PTSD, we previously found that an additional stimulus (the CSX) that was presented simultaneously with aversive stimulation became a stronger cue for conditioned fear compared to a standardly presented predictive conditioned stimulus (CS+). In the current study, we tested whether an additional CSX with higher semantic similarity to the aversive stimulus resulted in a stronger cue than the semantically dissimilar CSX (the semantically similar CSX was called CSR). Three groups of participants completed a standard fear conditioning experiment, where the presentation of two CSs (CSX and CSR) occurred simultaneously with a mild electric shock. The effect on return of fear of extinction using the CSX (CSX group), CSR (CSR group), or CS+ (CS+ group) was tested. We found that the CSX and CSR groups had significantly reduced physiological return of fear compared to the CS+ group. Additionally, preliminary Bayesian evidence of no difference between CSR and CSX in reducing return of fear was found, though the study was underpowered to formally test CSR–CSX equivalence. These findings provide provisional evidence that presenting cues during exposure therapy that had temporal proximity to traumatic experiences is the most critical factor for reducing fear, which provides empirical support for the Ehlers and Clark cognitive model. Impact Statement: Stimuli presented simultaneously with the electric shock become a stronger fear conditioning cue compared to standard conditioned stimuli, which precede shock onset. We tested whether semantic similarity of these stimuli to the shock increased the strength of conditioning. Semantic similarity was not associated with decreased return of fear or higher re‐acquisition compared to a semantically irrelevant stimulus. Instead, semantic similarity may have slightly increased return of fear. Stimuli that are temporally proximal but not semantically similar to fearful events may be most effective for exposure therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Psychophysiology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Description
Abstract:Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) memory processes are often investigated using fear conditioning experiments. Based on the premises of Ehlers and Clark's cognitive model of PTSD, we previously found that an additional stimulus (the CSX) that was presented simultaneously with aversive stimulation became a stronger cue for conditioned fear compared to a standardly presented predictive conditioned stimulus (CS+). In the current study, we tested whether an additional CSX with higher semantic similarity to the aversive stimulus resulted in a stronger cue than the semantically dissimilar CSX (the semantically similar CSX was called CSR). Three groups of participants completed a standard fear conditioning experiment, where the presentation of two CSs (CSX and CSR) occurred simultaneously with a mild electric shock. The effect on return of fear of extinction using the CSX (CSX group), CSR (CSR group), or CS+ (CS+ group) was tested. We found that the CSX and CSR groups had significantly reduced physiological return of fear compared to the CS+ group. Additionally, preliminary Bayesian evidence of no difference between CSR and CSX in reducing return of fear was found, though the study was underpowered to formally test CSR–CSX equivalence. These findings provide provisional evidence that presenting cues during exposure therapy that had temporal proximity to traumatic experiences is the most critical factor for reducing fear, which provides empirical support for the Ehlers and Clark cognitive model. Impact Statement: Stimuli presented simultaneously with the electric shock become a stronger fear conditioning cue compared to standard conditioned stimuli, which precede shock onset. We tested whether semantic similarity of these stimuli to the shock increased the strength of conditioning. Semantic similarity was not associated with decreased return of fear or higher re‐acquisition compared to a semantically irrelevant stimulus. Instead, semantic similarity may have slightly increased return of fear. Stimuli that are temporally proximal but not semantically similar to fearful events may be most effective for exposure therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:00485772
DOI:10.1111/psyp.70337