Impaired differential learning of fear versus safety signs in obsessive-compulsive disorder

Understanding clinical fear and anxiety through the lens of human fear conditioning

Fear is an adaptive emotion that mobilizes defensive resources upon confrontation with danger. However, fear becomes maladaptive and can give rise to the development of clinical anxiety when it exceeds the degree of threat, generalizes broadly across stimuli and contexts, persists after the danger is gone or promotes excessive avoidance behaviour. Pavlovian fear conditioning has been the prime research instrument that has led to substantial progress in understanding the multi-faceted psychological and neurobiological mechanisms of fear in past decades. In this Perspective, we suggest that fruitful use of Pavlovian fear conditioning as a laboratory model of clinical anxiety requires moving beyond the study of fear acquisition to associated fear conditioning phenomena: fear extinction, generalization of conditioned fear and fearful avoidance. Understanding individual differences in each of these phenomena, not only in isolation but also in how they interact, will further strengthen the external validity of the fear conditioning model as a tool with which to study maladaptive fear as it manifests in clinical anxiety.

Test–retest reliability of human threat conditioning and generalization across a 1‐to‐2‐week interval

Given the increasing use of threat conditioning and generalization for clinical-translational research efforts, establishing test-retest reliability of these paradigms is necessary. Specifically, it is an empirical question whether the same participant evinces a similar generalization gradient of conditioned responses across two sessions with the identical contingencies and stimuli. Here, 46 human volunteers participated in an identical auditory threat acquisition and generalization protocol at two sessions separated by 1-to-2 weeks. Skin conductance responses (SCR) and trial-by-trial shock risk ratings served as primary measures. We used linear mixed effects modeling to test differential threat responses and generalization gradients, and Generalizability (G) theory coefficients as our primary formal assessment of test-retest reliability of intraindividual stability and change across time. Results showed largely invariant differential conditioning and generalization gradients across time. G coefficients indicated fair reliability for acquisition and generalization SCR. In contrast, risk rating reliabilities were mixed, and reliability was particularly low for acquisition risk ratings. Our findings generally support reliability of the threat conditioning and generalization paradigm for shorter test-retest intervals and highlight their utility for assessments of behavioral interventions in mental health research, but challenges remain and further work is needed. Threat conditioning and generalization tasks are increasingly used for translational efforts to improve behavioral interventions, and thus test-retest reliability for these tasks needs to be established. Our results support the test-retest reliability of threat conditioning and generalization over a relatively short (1-to-2 week) interval, but this depends on the measure used (physiological vs. self-report). Overall, these tasks could be appropriate for repeated testing over the course of a short-duration intervention study, but more research is needed, particularly in regard to longer-duration studies.

Mechanisms of exposure and response prevention in obsessive-compulsive disorder: effects of habituation and expectancy violation on short-term outcome in cognitive behavioral therapy

BACKGROUND

Exposure and response prevention is effective and recommended as the first choice for treating obsessive-compulsive disorders (OCD). Its mechanisms of action are rarely studied, but two major theories make distinct assumptions: while the emotional processing theory assumes that treatment effects are associated with habituation within and between exposure sessions, the inhibitory learning approach highlights the acquisition of additional associations, implying alternative mechanisms like expectancy violation. The present study aimed to investigate whether process variables derived from both theories predict short-term outcome.

METHOD

In a university outpatient unit, 110 patients (63 female) with OCD received manual-based cognitive-behavioral therapy with high standardization of the first two exposure sessions. Specifically, therapists repeated the first exposure session identically and assessed subjective units of distress as well as expectancy ratings in the course of exposure sessions. Based on these data, individual scores for habituation and distress-related expectancy violation were calculated and used for prediction of both percentage change on the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) and remission status after 20 therapy sessions.

RESULTS

In a multiple regression model for percentage change, within-session habituation during the first exposure was a significant predictor, while in a logistic regression predicting remission status, distress-related expectancy violation during the first exposure revealed significance. A path model further supported these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The results represent first evidence for distress-related expectancy violation and confirm preliminary findings for habituation, suggesting that both processes contribute to treatment benefits of exposure in OCD, and both mechanisms appear to be independent.