Cited by 20Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMemory and Neural MechanismsPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research

Brain-based mediation of non-conscious reduction of phobic avoidance in young women during functional MRI: a randomised controlled experiment

Siegel, Paul, Wang, Zhishun, Murray, Lilly, Campos, Julianna, Sims, Virginia, Leighton, Eva, Peterson, Bradley S·2020·The Lancet Psychiatry

Abstract

Background Exposure therapy is the treatment of choice for anxiety disorders but requires people to confront feared situations and can be distressing. We tested the hypothesis that exposure without conscious awareness would reduce fear in participants with specific phobia by harnessing the neural circuitry supporting the automatic extinction of fear. Methods In this single-centre, randomised controlled experiment, we recruited women aged 18-29 years from an ethnically diverse, community-based population in northeastern USA, between Sept 1, 2013, and Aug 1, 2016. Eligible participants classified as having phobia met the DSM-5 criteria for specific phobia but not for any other disorder, had scores in the top 10% of respondents to the Fear of Spiders Questionnaire, and exhibited impairing avoidance of a live tarantula. Eligible controls met no criteria for any disorder, were in the bottom 30% of questionnaire respondents, and displayed no avoidance of the tarantula. The randomisation schedule was generated with the open source Research Randomizer Tool. A research assistant randomly assigned participants to the active intervention of very brief exposure (VBE)-the repeated presentation of masked phobic stimuli (ie, spiders)-or the control intervention which used masked flowers (VBF). VBE and VBF were given code numbers to prevent staff from knowing which intervention they were administering. During a 10 min functional MRI (fMRI) task, each participant was exposed to 16 blocks of t…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30285-6

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Siegel, P., Wang, Z., Murray, L., Campos, J., Sims, V., Leighton, E., & Peterson, B. S.
Affiliations
  • Purchase College (US)
  • New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Siegel, Paul
Venue
The Lancet Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-11
Volume
7
Issue
11
Pages
971-981
ISSN
2215-0366 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3093391248
Cited by
20
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Lancet Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Brain and Behavior Research Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health (7R21MH101564-02)
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
spider phobia, specific phobia, fear extinction, masked stimuli, fear avoidance, inferior frontal cortex, caudate nucleus, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, anterior insula, emotion regulation, young women, functional MRI
MeSH terms
Emotional Regulation, Adolescent, Adult, Animals, Bayes Theorem, Brain, Brain Mapping, Extinction, Psychological, Fear, Female, Humans, Implosive Therapy, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Phobic Disorders, Spiders, Linear Models, 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