Effects of anxiolytic treatment on potentiated startle during aversive image anticipation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Heightened anticipation of future events has been characterized as a feature of certain anxiety disorders. In functional magnetic resonance imaging studies, anticipation of fearful/threatening images has been shown to robustly activate the insular cortex and amygdala in healthy subjects, in subjects with high trait anxiety, and in some with anxiety disorders. Blood oxygenation level dependent activation in response to negative image anticipation is also sensitive to anxiolytic treatment, suggesting that image anticipation probes anxiety systems. It is not clear, however, if behavioral responses to image anticipation are also sensitive to anxiolytics. This study tested the hypothesis that anxiety behaviors during anticipation of negative images are sensitive to anxiolytic treatment. METHOD: This study examined the effects of alprazolam and pregabalin treatment on potentiated startle during affective image anticipation. RESULTS: There was an effect of anticipation type (negative versus neutral versus positive) on startle reactivity and subjective ratings, suggesting that the task was effective in assaying negative anticipatory arousal. Both treatments significantly reduced overall startle magnitude. However, neither treatment specifically affected potentiated startle during aversive anticipation. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that potentiated startle in response to anticipation of aversive images is not sensitive to anxiolytic treatments in a healthy population, limiting its use as a predictive model of anxiolytic activity. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".