Responses to Interoceptive Exposure in People With Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): A Preliminary Analysis of Induced Anxiety Reactions and Trauma Memories and Their Relationship to Anxiety Sensitivity and PTSD Symptom Severity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of evidence suggests that anxiety sensitivity (AS; fear of arousal-related sensations) plays a role in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Consistent with this, evidence indicates that interoceptive exposure (IE), which is a method for reducing AS, reduces PTSD symptoms. Clinical observations from our treatment studies indicate that IE triggers both anxiety and trauma memories in people with PTSD. The primary aim of this study was to describe the anxiety responses to a series of IE exercises and to examine whether or not trauma memories were activated. A secondary aim was to explore the relationships among AS, PTSD symptom severity, and IE responses. Data were collected from 23 people with PTSD who completed measures of PTSD symptoms and AS and a standardized battery of 10 IE exercises. Elevated anxiety and strong arousal responses were frequently elicited by the exercises, and trauma memories were also frequently triggered. AS and IE-triggered trauma memories significantly predicted IE-induced peak anxiety. The implications of the findings are discussed in terms of how IE might exert its therapeutic effects in the treatment of PTSD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".