Cited by 239Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMemory and Neural MechanismsPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research

Impaired discriminative fear-conditioning resulting from elevated fear responding to learned safety cues among individuals with panic disorder

Open access
Lissek, Shmuel, Rabin, Stephanie J., McDowell, Dana J., Dvir, Sharone, Bradford, Daniel E., Geraci, Marilla, Pine, Daniel S., Grillon, Christian·2009·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

Classical fear-conditioning is central to many etiologic accounts of panic disorder (PD), but few lab-based conditioning studies in PD have been conducted. One conditioning perspective proposes associative-learning deficits characterized by deficient safety learning among PD patients. The current study of PD assesses acquisition and retention of discriminative aversive conditioning using a fear-potentiated startle paradigm. This paradigm was chosen for its specific capacity to independently assess safety- and danger learning in the service of characterizing putative anomalies in each type of learning among those with PD. Though no group difference in fear-potentiated startle was found at retention, acquisition results demonstrate impaired discriminative learning among PD patients as indexed by measures of conditioned startle-potentiation to learned safety and danger cues. Importantly, this discrimination deficit was driven by enhanced startle-potentiation to the learned safety cue rather than aberrant reactivity to the danger cue. Consistent with this finding, PD patients relative to healthy individuals reported higher expectancies of dangerous outcomes in the presence of the safety cue, but equal danger expectancies during exposure to the danger cue. Such results link PD to impaired discrimination learning, reflecting elevated fear responding to learned safety cues.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2008.10.017

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Baddeley A 1986 Working Memory New York Oxford University Press
  2. First MB Spitzer RL Gibbon M Williams JBW 2002 Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders, Research Version, Patient Edition (SCID-I/P) New York Biometrics Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute
  3. Pavlov IP 1927 Conditioned reflexes New York Oxford University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lissek, S., Rabin, S. J., McDowell, D. J., Dvir, S., Bradford, D. E., Geraci, M., Pine, D. S., & Grillon, C.
Affiliations
United States Department of Health and Human Services (US)
Corresponding author
Lissek, Shmuel
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-02
Volume
47
Issue
2
Pages
111-118
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2168546903
Cited by
239
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 16
FWCI
9.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (Z01MH002798)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Keywords
panic disorder, fear conditioning, discriminative learning, safety learning, fear-potentiated startle, classical conditioning, safety cues, outcome expectations
MeSH terms
Adult, Conditioning, Classical, Cues, Electromyography, Fear, Female, Humans, Male, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Reflex, Startle, Panic Disorder, Young Adult

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