↓ Skip to main content

A discriminated conditioned punishment model of phobia

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
A discriminated conditioned punishment model of phobia
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, August 2013
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s49886
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher Bloom, Ryan Post, Joshua Mazick, Brittany Blumenthal, Caroline Doyle, Jeff Dyche, D. Gene Davenport, Brenna Peters

Abstract

Traditionally, the signaled avoidance (SA) paradigm has been used in an attempt to better understand human phobia. Animal models of this type have been criticized for ineffectively representing phobia. The SA model characterizes phobia as an avoidance behavior by presenting environmental cues, which act as warning signals to an aversive stimulus (ie, shock). Discriminated conditioned punishment (DCP) is an alternative paradigm that characterizes phobia as a choice behavior in which fear serves to punish an otherwise adaptive behavior. The present study quantifies the differences between the paradigms and suggests that DCP offers an alternative paradigm for phobia. Rats trained on either SA or DCP were compared on a number of behavioral variables relevant to human phobia. Results indicate that rats in the DCP paradigm responded significantly earlier to warning signals and were more effective at preventing shocks than rats in the SA paradigm. Implications of this alternative paradigm are discussed.

Twitter Demographics

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 26%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 57%
Neuroscience 3 13%
Unspecified 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 2 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 December 2013.
All research outputs
#14,180,180
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,470
of 2,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,618
of 198,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#34
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,977 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 198,405 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.