Cited by 122Memory and Neural MechanismsNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Quantifying fear potentiated startle using absolute versus proportional increase scoring methods: implications for the neurocircuitry of fear and anxiety

Walker, David, Davis, Michael·2002·Psychopharmacology

Abstract

Rationale The fear-potentiated startle paradigm [increased startle in the presence of a conditioned fear stimulus (CS)] has become increasingly popular as a tool for evaluating the potential efficacy of putative anxiolytic compounds. However, when the tested compounds also influence baseline startle, it is unclear how comparisons with control groups can best be made. Objective To evaluate the validity of absolute difference (startle amplitude on CS minus non-CS test trials) vs. proportional increase (the absolute difference score divided by startle amplitude on non-CS test trials) scoring methods. Methods The effect on proportional increase and absolute difference scores of baseline shifts that occur with or without concomitant increases in fear was evaluated in rats. A reliable measure should yield similar scores across shifting baselines, provided that fear levels remain constant. Results Preexisting baseline differences, and those brought about by different startle-eliciting noise burst intensities, by strychnine injections, or by CRH infusions, each increased absolute difference scores without markedly influencing proportional change scores. These baseline differences were not associated with different fear levels. Increases in baseline startle brought about by unsignaled footshocks or by a second CS - increases which are associated with increased fear - partially occluded additional CS-induced increases using either measure. Conclusions Across different baselines, CS-eli…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00213-002-1213-0

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Drugs or manipulations acting via different systems (CeA vs BNST) should summate on startle, while those acting via the same system should occlude each other.

    “the influence of startle on treatments that acted through different systems (ie, the CeA or BNST) would be additive, whereas the effects on startle of treatments that acted through the same system (ie, both CeA or both BNST) would occlude one another”
  • It has been argued that the positive effect of benzodiazepines on fear-potentiated startle did not reflect genuine reductions in fear but was artifactual, secondary to reduced baseline startle reactivity.

    “it has been argued that the positive effect of benzodiazepines on fear-potentiated startle (Bitsios et al, 1999; Riba et al, 2001) did not reflect genuine reductions in fear but was artifactual, secondary to reduced baseline startle reactivity (Grillon and Baas, 2002; Walker and Davis, 2002b).”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 32 · Cited by 122

Authors
Walker, D., & Davis, M.
Affiliations
Emory University (US)
Corresponding author
Walker, David
Venue
Psychopharmacology
Published
2002-11-01
Volume
164
Issue
3
Pages
318-328
ISSN
  • 0033-3158 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-2072
OpenAlex
W2085785107
Cited by
122
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH59906, MH-57250, R01MH057250, P50MH052384, R01MH059906, P50MH058922, MH58922, MH 47840, MH-52384)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
fear-potentiated startle, scoring methods, shifting baselines, strychnine, corticotropin-releasing factor, footshock, saturation effects, rats
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Analysis of Variance, Animals, Anxiety, Conditioning, Psychological, Convulsants, Corticotropin-Releasing Hormone, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Fear, Male, Models, Neurological, Photic Stimulation, Reflex, Startle, Strychnine, Anti-Anxiety Agents, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Rats

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review