4.4 Article

Psychophysiological modelling and the measurement of fear conditioning

Journal

BEHAVIOUR RESEARCH AND THERAPY
Volume 127, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2020.103576

Keywords

Threat conditioning; Aversive learning; Return of fear; Reconsolidation; Anxiety disorder; Retrodictive validity

Funding

  1. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union [ERC-2018 CoG-816564]
  2. Wellcome Trust [203147/Z/16/Z]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Quantification of fear conditioning is paramount to many clinical and translational studies on aversive learning. Various measures of fear conditioning co-exist, including different observables and different methods of preprocessing. Here, we first argue that low measurement error is a rational desideratum for any measurement technique. We then show that measurement error can be approximated in benchmark experiments by how closely intended fear memory relates to measured fear memory, a quantity that we term retrodictive validity. From this perspective, we discuss different approaches commonly used to quantify fear conditioning. One of these is psychophysiological modelling (PsPM). This builds on a measurement model that describes how a psychological variable, such as fear memory, influences a physiological measure. This model is statistically inverted to estimate the most likely value of the psychological variable, given the measured data. We review existing PsPMs for skin conductance, pupil size, heart period, respiration, and startle eye-blink. We illustrate the benefit of PsPMs in terms of retrodictive validity and translate this into sample size required to achieve a desired level of statistical power. This sample size can differ up to a factor of three between different observables, and between the best, and the current standard, data pre-processing methods.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available