2006•PsychophysiologyRequires access

Fear acquisition requires awareness in trace but not delay conditioning

Almut I. Weike, Harald Thomas Schupp, Alfons O. Hamm

Open publisher page 165 citations

Abstract

The present study explored fear acquisition in differential delay versus trace conditioning in regard to the potential role of the acquired contingency awareness. One of two neutral pictures (CS+) either coterminated with (delay group; n=32) or was followed by the aversive unconditioned stimulus (UCS) after CS offset (trace group; n=32), while startle blink and skin conductance responses (SCR) were measured. As expected, the acquisition of conditioned startle potentiation in delay conditioning was independent of contingency awareness. In contrast, fear-potentiated startle in trace conditioning was only observed for those participants who were aware of the CS-UCS contingencies. SCR conditioning was generally only obtained for aware participants. The present results suggest a more implicit learning process in delay fear conditioning, whereas the explicit acquisition of contingency awareness might be a prerequisite for trace fear conditioning.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The present study explored fear acquisition in differential delay versus trace conditioning in regard to the potential role of the acquired contingency awareness. One of two neutral pictures (CS+) either coterminated with (delay group; n=32) or was followed by the aversive unconditioned stimulus (UCS) after CS offset (trace group; n=32), while startle blink and skin conductance responses (SCR) were measured. As expected, the acquisition of conditioned startle potentiation in delay conditioning was independent of contingency awareness. In contrast, fear-potentiated startle in trace conditioning was only observed for those participants who were aware of the CS-UCS contingencies. SCR conditioning was generally only obtained for aware participants. The present results suggest a more implicit learning process in delay fear conditioning, whereas the explicit acquisition of contingency awareness might be a prerequisite for trace fear conditioning.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 165 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The present study explored fear acquisition in differential delay versus trace conditioning in regard to the potential role of the acquired contingency awareness. One of two neutral pictures (CS+) either coterminated with (delay group; n=32) or was followed by the aversive unconditioned stimulus (UCS) after CS offset (trace group; n=32), while startle blink and skin conductance responses (SCR) were measured. As expected, the acquisition of conditioned startle potentiation in delay conditioning was independent of contingency awareness. In contrast, fear-potentiated startle in trace conditioning was only observed for those participants who were aware of the CS-UCS contingencies. SCR conditioning was generally only obtained for aware participants. The present results suggest a more implicit learning process in delay fear conditioning, whereas the explicit acquisition of contingency awareness might be a prerequisite for trace fear conditioning.

Key concepts: Psychology, Conditioning, TRACE (psycholinguistics), Fear conditioning, Cognitive psychology, Neuroscience, Linguistics, Amygdala

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Fear acquisition requires awareness in trace but not delay conditioning — Research Paper | ScholarLens