Is Acoustic Startle a Viable Exposure Protocol for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder? A Clinical Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exaggerated startle is a common symptom (based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [fourth edition] Criterion D) for many patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Findings from previous studies suggest that exaggerated startle may be due to trauma exposure or pretrauma vulnerability factors for PTSD development. The present clinical case study reports on a patient with PTSD characterized by a very prominent startle response and preference against standard trauma-related exposure strategies. On the basis of recent findings that interoceptive exposure exercises (e.g. shaking head side to side, hyperventilation) elicit trauma-related memories (Wald & Taylor, 2008), the authors sought to determine whether repeated application of an acoustic startle stimulus would serve to diminish the prominent startle response and facilitate exposure and overall symptom reduction by eliciting trauma-related memories. The protocol was successful in eliciting vivid and distressing trauma-related memories. Over the course of seven exposure trials, the patient demonstrated a decrease in distress elicited during the protocol, improved mood, and reduced general anxiety and trauma-related distress. He also reported significantly decreased startle response to loud noises encountered during activities of daily living. Although preliminary, these finding suggest that the acoustic startle protocol may be a viable (interoceptive) exposure strategy for individuals with PTSD, particularly those with exaggerated startle responses and those who are not amenable to standard trauma-related exposure strategies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".