↓ Skip to main content

Early adversity disrupts the adult use of aversive prediction errors to reduce fear in uncertainty

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Early adversity disrupts the adult use of aversive prediction errors to reduce fear in uncertainty
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00227
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristina M. Wright, Alyssa DiLeo, Michael A. McDannald

Abstract

Early life adversity increases anxiety in adult rodents and primates, and increases the risk for developing post-traumatic disorder (PTSD) in humans. We hypothesized that early adversity impairs the use of learning signals -negative, aversive prediction errors-to reduce fear in uncertainty. To test this hypothesis, we gave adolescent rats a battery of adverse experiences then assessed adult performance in probabilistic Pavlovian fear conditioning and fear extinction. Rats were confronted with three cues associated with different probabilities of foot shock: one cue never predicted shock, another cue predicted shock with uncertainty, and a final cue always predicted shock. Control rats initially acquired fear to all cues, but rapidly reduced fear to the non-predictive and uncertain cues. Early adversity rats were slower to reduce fear to the non-predictive cue and never fully reduced fear to the uncertain cue. In extinction, all cues were presented in the absence of shock. Fear to the uncertain cue in discrimination, but not early adversity itself, predicted the reduction of fear in extinction. These results demonstrate early adversity impairs the use of negative aversive prediction errors to reduce fear, especially in situations of uncertainty.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 43 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 33%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 33%
Neuroscience 11 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Philosophy 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 10 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 08 November 2019.
All research outputs
#7,059,762
of 24,991,957 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#1,080
of 3,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,977
of 273,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#29
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,991,957 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,409 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
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 273,066 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.