Psychophysiological evidence for fear extinction learning via mental imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imagery-based extinction procedures have long been used in the treatments of fear-related conditions. The assumption is that imagery can substitute for the perceptual stimuli in the extinction process. Yet, experimental validations of this assumption have been limited in number and some have relied exclusively on measures of autonomic reactivity without consideration of conscious feelings of fear. The current investigation sought to assess whether imagery-based exposure could lead to extinction of conditioned fear to the corresponding perceptual stimulus. Conditioned fear responses were measured by both a physiological (i.e., skin conductance response [SCR]) and a subjective (i.e., self-reported fear) measure. Participants (N = 56) first underwent perceptual differential fear conditioning, then imagery extinction, then perceptual extinction. SCR evidence was found for successful fear conditioning, generalization of fear from viewing to imagery, and most importantly, the absence of differential fear after imagery extinction upon re-exposure to the conditioned perceptual stimulus. Self-reported fear confirmed the acquisition and generalization of fear and provided evidence of a significant reduction in differential fear conditioning across extinction. Consistent with clinical evidence of the efficacy of imagery extinction and the existing limited experimental literature, this study offers support for fear extinction to perceptual stimuli via imagery exposure.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 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".