Cited by 383Memory and Neural MechanismsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesStress Responses and Cortisol

Assessing fear and anxiety in humans using the threat of predictable and unpredictable aversive events (the NPU-threat test)

Open access
Schmitz, Anja, Grillon, Christian·2012·Nature Protocols

Abstract

The threat of predictable and unpredictable aversive events was developed to assess short-duration (fear) and long-duration (anxiety) aversive states in humans. A typical experiment consists of three conditions: a safe condition (neutral (N)), during which participants are safe from aversive stimuli, and two threat conditions—one in which aversive events are administered predictably (P) (i.e., signaled by a threat cue), and one in which aversive stimuli are administered unpredictably (U). During the so-called NPU-threat test, ongoing change in aversive states is measured with the startle reflex. The NPU-threat test has been validated in pharmacological and clinical studies and can be implemented in children and adults. Similar procedures have been applied in animal models, making the NPU-threat test an ideal tool for translational research. The procedure is relatively short (35 min), simple to implement and generates consistent results with large effect sizes.

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 · 10.1038/nprot.2012.001

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • The pattern of responses to the different conditions closely matches that of previous research where the number of shocks was matched in the P and U conditions, rendering the shock number difference unlikely to affect the results.

    “However, the pattern of responses to the different conditions closely matches that of previous research where the number of shocks was matched in the P and U conditions, rendering this option unlikely (e.g., Schmitz & Grillon, 2012).”

    From Responding to uncertain threat: A potential mediator for the effect of mindfulness on anxiety (2021) · cites this paper as Schmitz & Grillon, 2012

    The Equipment Setup section describes shocks in both P and U conditions, and Anticipated Results describes the expected pattern of startle responses. The copy does not explicitly say that shock counts were matched between P and U or conclude that a difference in shock counts is unlikely to affect the results. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • These startle patterns are comparable to what previous applications of the NPU have shown.

    “These patterns are comparable to what previous applications of the NPU have shown (cf. Schmitz and Grillon, 2012; Papenfuss et al., 2021).”
  • The threat task showed patterns of responses to predictable and unpredictable threat similar to previous research.

    “The non-significant findings were particularly unexpected from the perspective that the threat task showed patterns of responses to predictable and unpredictable threat similar to previous research (Schmitz & Grillon, 2012).”

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: 1

  1. [4]Rachman ST Anxiety 2004 Psychology Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schmitz, A., & Grillon, C.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (US)
Corresponding author
Schmitz, Anja
Venue
Nature Protocols
Published
2012-02-23
Volume
7
Issue
3
Pages
527-532
ISSN
  • 1750-2799 (ISSN-L)
  • 1754-2189
OpenAlex
W2043873605
Cited by
383
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 4
FWCI
8.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Protocols (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (ZIAMH002798, Z01MH002798, Z01MH002804)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
Keywords
fear, anxiety, startle response, aversive states, translational research, animal models
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Fear, Humans, Psychological Tests, Reflex, Startle, Anticipation, Psychological

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