Symposium 106 - Mechanisms of Fear Across Development and Across Diagnoses

Chair(s)

• AB

  Abigail Beech, M.A. (she/her/hers)

  Lab Coordinator
  Tufts University, Harvard University
  Medford, Massachusetts

Discussant(s)

• 

  Michael W. Otto, Ph.D. (he/him/his)

  Professor
  Boston University
  Boston, Massachusetts

Presenter(s)

• SD

  Stephanie DeCross, M.A. (she/her/hers)

  Harvard University
  Cambridge, Massachusetts
• MW

  Meghan Whalen, B.S. (she/her/hers)

  Graduate Student
  Tufts University
  Medford, Massachusetts
• SC

  Samuel Cooper, Ph.D. (he/him/his)

  Postdoctoral Fellow
  University of Texas at Austin
  Austin, Texas
• 

  Joseph McGuire, Ph.D. (he/him/his)

  Assistant Professor
  Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
  Baltimore, Maryland

Many forms of psychopathology, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), involve experiences of heightened fear. Thus, across diagnoses, researchers and clinicians must strive to better understand the mechanisms involved in the development and maintenance of fear, to improve methods to reduce fear and promote safety learning.

A variety of paradigms can be used to study fear and safety learning in the laboratory, including fear conditioning, reversal learning, and counterconditioning. In the first phase of fear conditioning (i.e., acquisition), a neutral stimulus is repeatedly paired with an aversive stimulus (Milad et al., 2014). Through this pairing, individuals develop a fear response to the neutral stimulus. During the second phase of fear conditioning (i.e., extinction), the once neutral, now conditioned, stimulus is presented repeatedly without the aversive stimulus, leading to a decrease in fear response. This procedure is thought to be a laboratory parallel for exposure therapy. In a related-paradigm, reversal learning, during the first half of the procedure, one of two neutral stimuli is paired with an aversive stimulus, but for the second half, the contingency switches and the second neutral stimulus is paired with the aversive stimulus. This procedure potentially taps into an individual’s ability to flexibly detect change in threat and safety signals in one’s environment. Finally, counterconditioning (reward extinction) is a method to enhance extinction learning; it typically involves pairing the conditioned stimulus with a positive stimulus in attempt to change the association from fear to safety.

Current research continues to examine differences in fear learning across age, trauma-exposure, and diagnoses (Milad et al., 2014). For example, some studies find that trauma-exposed or maltreated children show different patterns of responses during fear conditioning, which may contribute to the development of psychopathology (e.g., McLaughlin et al., 2016). Other work shows that adults with PTSD, OCD, and anxiety disorders demonstrate different patterns during fear conditioning relative to healthy controls (Duits et al., 2015). Understanding the underlying mechanisms of fear learning and how they differ across populations can inform the development of more effective treatments for anxiety and related disorders.

This symposium will cover fear learning research across a variety of ages, disorders, and paradigms. We will start by considering associations between trauma and neural activation during fear reversal, in a study of adolescents presented by Speaker 1. Next, Speaker 2 will present findings from a meta-analysis of fear acquisition and childhood trauma/maltreatment in child and adolescent samples. Then, we will move on to consider related work in adults, with Speaker 3’s presentation on a neuroimaging study of counterconditioning in PTSD. Lastly, we will consider fear extinction in the context of OCD and potential clinical implications with Speaker 4’s presentation on characterizing fear extinction profiles in youth with OCD. Finally, our Discussant will discuss these studies’ findings and possible future directions for fear learning research.