Enhanced late positive potential to conditioned threat cue during delayed extinction in anxious youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deficits in threat learning relate to anxiety symptoms. Since several anxiety disorders arise in adolescence, impaired adolescent threat learning could contribute to adolescent changes in risk for anxiety. This study compared threat learning among anxious and non-anxious youth using self-reports, peripheral psychophysiology measures, and event-related potentials. Because exposure therapy, the first-line treatment for anxiety disorders, is largely based on principles of extinction learning, the study also examined the link between extinction learning and treatment outcomes among anxious youth. METHODS: Clinically anxious (n = 28) and non-anxious (n = 33) youth completed differential threat acquisition and immediate extinction. They returned to the lab a week later to complete a threat generalization test and a delayed extinction task. Following these two experimental visits, anxious youth received exposure therapy for 12 weeks. RESULTS: Anxious as compared to non-anxious youth demonstrated elevated cognitive and physiological responses across acquisition and immediate extinction learning, as well as greater threat generalization. In addition, anxious youth showed enhanced late positive potential response to the conditioned threat cue compared to the safety cue during delayed extinction. Finally, aberrant neural response during delayed extinction was associated with poorer treatment outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The study emphasizes differences between anxious and non-anxious youth in threat learning processes and provides preliminary support for a link between neural processing during delayed extinction and exposure-based treatment outcome in pediatric anxiety.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".