↓ Skip to main content

Deficient safety learning characterizes high trait anxious individuals

Overview of attention for article published in Biological Psychology, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
127 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
208 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Deficient safety learning characterizes high trait anxious individuals
Published in
Biological Psychology, November 2012
DOI 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.11.006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Femke J. Gazendam, Jan H. Kamphuis, Merel Kindt

Abstract

Trait anxiety is a well-established risk factor for developing anxiety disorders, but evidence for abnormal associative fear learning in high trait anxious (HTA) individuals is inconclusive. In part, this may due to limitations in the scope and measures used to assess fear learning. The current study therefore assessed fear learning across multiple response domains and multiple test phases in a two-day discriminative fear-conditioning paradigm. We tested whether trait anxiety is associated with deficient safety learning, by comparing HTA individuals (N=20) and healthy Controls (N=22). HTA participants showed stronger fear on the startle response and distress ratings to the safety (CS(-)) but not to the threat stimulus (CS(+)) during acquisition, along with impaired extinction and re-extinction. Trait anxiety did not affect skin conductance responses and effects on UCS-expectancy were limited. We conclude that high trait anxiety may be characterized by deficient safety learning which in turn may promote persistent and generalized fear responses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 208 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 204 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 21%
Student > Master 29 14%
Researcher 25 12%
Student > Bachelor 20 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 7%
Other 21 10%
Unknown 55 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 92 44%
Neuroscience 19 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 <1%
Other 13 6%
Unknown 70 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 November 2012.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Biological Psychology
#1,650
of 1,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,335
of 285,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biological Psychology
#26
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 285,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.