When nothing matters: Assessing markers of expectancy violation during omissions of threat
Over the past decade, increasing evidence has pointed to the importance of threat omissions and the associated violations of expectancy for long-term gains of extinction learning and exposure treatment. Yet, the identification of valid markers of these expectancy violations remains somewhat challeng...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Willems, Anne L. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2021transfer abstract |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: A novel hesitant-fuzzy-based group decision approach for outsourcing risk - Yazdani, Morteza ELSEVIER, 2021, Amsterdam [u.a.] |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:136 ; year:2021 ; pages:0 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.brat.2020.103764 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
ELV052622606 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ELV052622606 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230626033520.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 210910s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.brat.2020.103764 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001273.pica |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)ELV052622606 | ||
| 035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S0005-7967(20)30218-7 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 004 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 54.72 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Willems, Anne L. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a When nothing matters: Assessing markers of expectancy violation during omissions of threat |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021transfer abstract | |
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Over the past decade, increasing evidence has pointed to the importance of threat omissions and the associated violations of expectancy for long-term gains of extinction learning and exposure treatment. Yet, the identification of valid markers of these expectancy violations remains somewhat challenging, thereby complicating the translation of these scientific discoveries into viable therapeutic interventions. In order to fill this gap, we developed the expectancy violation assessment (EVA) task in which participants are presented with probability (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) and intensity (weak, moderate, strong) information of an upcoming electrical stimulation, time-locked by a countdown clock. Most trials, however, did not contain the electrical stimulation and therefore constituted a violation of threat expectancies. We recorded subjective ratings of relief-pleasantness and omission-induced skin conductance responses during all omitted stimulations. As expected, both markers were lower to expected omissions (following 0% instructions) versus unexpected omissions (following non-0% instructions). Furthermore, they increased with increasing intensity instructions, and were moderately correlated on a trial-by-trial basis. These findings provide experimental validation of the EVA task as a screening model for putative markers of expectancy violation that might be useful for on-line tracking of exposure success. | ||
| 520 | |a Over the past decade, increasing evidence has pointed to the importance of threat omissions and the associated violations of expectancy for long-term gains of extinction learning and exposure treatment. Yet, the identification of valid markers of these expectancy violations remains somewhat challenging, thereby complicating the translation of these scientific discoveries into viable therapeutic interventions. In order to fill this gap, we developed the expectancy violation assessment (EVA) task in which participants are presented with probability (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) and intensity (weak, moderate, strong) information of an upcoming electrical stimulation, time-locked by a countdown clock. Most trials, however, did not contain the electrical stimulation and therefore constituted a violation of threat expectancies. We recorded subjective ratings of relief-pleasantness and omission-induced skin conductance responses during all omitted stimulations. As expected, both markers were lower to expected omissions (following 0% instructions) versus unexpected omissions (following non-0% instructions). Furthermore, they increased with increasing intensity instructions, and were moderately correlated on a trial-by-trial basis. These findings provide experimental validation of the EVA task as a screening model for putative markers of expectancy violation that might be useful for on-line tracking of exposure success. | ||
| 650 | 7 | |a Fear |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Prediction errors |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Threat omission |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Relief |2 Elsevier | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Vervliet, Bram |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |n Elsevier Science |a Yazdani, Morteza ELSEVIER |t A novel hesitant-fuzzy-based group decision approach for outsourcing risk |d 2021 |g Amsterdam [u.a.] |w (DE-627)ELV006592023 |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:136 |g year:2021 |g pages:0 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2020.103764 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 54.72 |j Künstliche Intelligenz |q VZ |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 136 |j 2021 |h 0 | ||
| author_variant |
a l w al alw |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
willemsannelvervlietbram:2021----:hnohnmtessesnmresfxetnyiltod |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2021transfer abstract |
| bklnumber |
54.72 |
| publishDate |
2021 |
| allfields |
10.1016/j.brat.2020.103764 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001273.pica (DE-627)ELV052622606 (ELSEVIER)S0005-7967(20)30218-7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 004 VZ 54.72 bkl Willems, Anne L. verfasserin aut When nothing matters: Assessing markers of expectancy violation during omissions of threat 2021transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Over the past decade, increasing evidence has pointed to the importance of threat omissions and the associated violations of expectancy for long-term gains of extinction learning and exposure treatment. Yet, the identification of valid markers of these expectancy violations remains somewhat challenging, thereby complicating the translation of these scientific discoveries into viable therapeutic interventions. In order to fill this gap, we developed the expectancy violation assessment (EVA) task in which participants are presented with probability (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) and intensity (weak, moderate, strong) information of an upcoming electrical stimulation, time-locked by a countdown clock. Most trials, however, did not contain the electrical stimulation and therefore constituted a violation of threat expectancies. We recorded subjective ratings of relief-pleasantness and omission-induced skin conductance responses during all omitted stimulations. As expected, both markers were lower to expected omissions (following 0% instructions) versus unexpected omissions (following non-0% instructions). Furthermore, they increased with increasing intensity instructions, and were moderately correlated on a trial-by-trial basis. These findings provide experimental validation of the EVA task as a screening model for putative markers of expectancy violation that might be useful for on-line tracking of exposure success. Over the past decade, increasing evidence has pointed to the importance of threat omissions and the associated violations of expectancy for long-term gains of extinction learning and exposure treatment. Yet, the identification of valid markers of these expectancy violations remains somewhat challenging, thereby complicating the translation of these scientific discoveries into viable therapeutic interventions. In order to fill this gap, we developed the expectancy violation assessment (EVA) task in which participants are presented with probability (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) and intensity (weak, moderate, strong) information of an upcoming electrical stimulation, time-locked by a countdown clock. Most trials, however, did not contain the electrical stimulation and therefore constituted a violation of threat expectancies. We recorded subjective ratings of relief-pleasantness and omission-induced skin conductance responses during all omitted stimulations. As expected, both markers were lower to expected omissions (following 0% instructions) versus unexpected omissions (following non-0% instructions). Furthermore, they increased with increasing intensity instructions, and were moderately correlated on a trial-by-trial basis. These findings provide experimental validation of the EVA task as a screening model for putative markers of expectancy violation that might be useful for on-line tracking of exposure success. Fear Elsevier Prediction errors Elsevier Threat omission Elsevier Relief Elsevier Vervliet, Bram oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Yazdani, Morteza ELSEVIER A novel hesitant-fuzzy-based group decision approach for outsourcing risk 2021 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV006592023 volume:136 year:2021 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2020.103764 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 54.72 Künstliche Intelligenz VZ AR 136 2021 0 |
| spelling |
10.1016/j.brat.2020.103764 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001273.pica (DE-627)ELV052622606 (ELSEVIER)S0005-7967(20)30218-7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 004 VZ 54.72 bkl Willems, Anne L. verfasserin aut When nothing matters: Assessing markers of expectancy violation during omissions of threat 2021transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Over the past decade, increasing evidence has pointed to the importance of threat omissions and the associated violations of expectancy for long-term gains of extinction learning and exposure treatment. Yet, the identification of valid markers of these expectancy violations remains somewhat challenging, thereby complicating the translation of these scientific discoveries into viable therapeutic interventions. In order to fill this gap, we developed the expectancy violation assessment (EVA) task in which participants are presented with probability (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) and intensity (weak, moderate, strong) information of an upcoming electrical stimulation, time-locked by a countdown clock. Most trials, however, did not contain the electrical stimulation and therefore constituted a violation of threat expectancies. We recorded subjective ratings of relief-pleasantness and omission-induced skin conductance responses during all omitted stimulations. As expected, both markers were lower to expected omissions (following 0% instructions) versus unexpected omissions (following non-0% instructions). Furthermore, they increased with increasing intensity instructions, and were moderately correlated on a trial-by-trial basis. These findings provide experimental validation of the EVA task as a screening model for putative markers of expectancy violation that might be useful for on-line tracking of exposure success. Over the past decade, increasing evidence has pointed to the importance of threat omissions and the associated violations of expectancy for long-term gains of extinction learning and exposure treatment. Yet, the identification of valid markers of these expectancy violations remains somewhat challenging, thereby complicating the translation of these scientific discoveries into viable therapeutic interventions. In order to fill this gap, we developed the expectancy violation assessment (EVA) task in which participants are presented with probability (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) and intensity (weak, moderate, strong) information of an upcoming electrical stimulation, time-locked by a countdown clock. Most trials, however, did not contain the electrical stimulation and therefore constituted a violation of threat expectancies. We recorded subjective ratings of relief-pleasantness and omission-induced skin conductance responses during all omitted stimulations. As expected, both markers were lower to expected omissions (following 0% instructions) versus unexpected omissions (following non-0% instructions). Furthermore, they increased with increasing intensity instructions, and were moderately correlated on a trial-by-trial basis. These findings provide experimental validation of the EVA task as a screening model for putative markers of expectancy violation that might be useful for on-line tracking of exposure success. Fear Elsevier Prediction errors Elsevier Threat omission Elsevier Relief Elsevier Vervliet, Bram oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Yazdani, Morteza ELSEVIER A novel hesitant-fuzzy-based group decision approach for outsourcing risk 2021 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV006592023 volume:136 year:2021 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2020.103764 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 54.72 Künstliche Intelligenz VZ AR 136 2021 0 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.brat.2020.103764 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001273.pica (DE-627)ELV052622606 (ELSEVIER)S0005-7967(20)30218-7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 004 VZ 54.72 bkl Willems, Anne L. verfasserin aut When nothing matters: Assessing markers of expectancy violation during omissions of threat 2021transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Over the past decade, increasing evidence has pointed to the importance of threat omissions and the associated violations of expectancy for long-term gains of extinction learning and exposure treatment. Yet, the identification of valid markers of these expectancy violations remains somewhat challenging, thereby complicating the translation of these scientific discoveries into viable therapeutic interventions. In order to fill this gap, we developed the expectancy violation assessment (EVA) task in which participants are presented with probability (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) and intensity (weak, moderate, strong) information of an upcoming electrical stimulation, time-locked by a countdown clock. Most trials, however, did not contain the electrical stimulation and therefore constituted a violation of threat expectancies. We recorded subjective ratings of relief-pleasantness and omission-induced skin conductance responses during all omitted stimulations. As expected, both markers were lower to expected omissions (following 0% instructions) versus unexpected omissions (following non-0% instructions). Furthermore, they increased with increasing intensity instructions, and were moderately correlated on a trial-by-trial basis. These findings provide experimental validation of the EVA task as a screening model for putative markers of expectancy violation that might be useful for on-line tracking of exposure success. Over the past decade, increasing evidence has pointed to the importance of threat omissions and the associated violations of expectancy for long-term gains of extinction learning and exposure treatment. Yet, the identification of valid markers of these expectancy violations remains somewhat challenging, thereby complicating the translation of these scientific discoveries into viable therapeutic interventions. In order to fill this gap, we developed the expectancy violation assessment (EVA) task in which participants are presented with probability (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) and intensity (weak, moderate, strong) information of an upcoming electrical stimulation, time-locked by a countdown clock. Most trials, however, did not contain the electrical stimulation and therefore constituted a violation of threat expectancies. We recorded subjective ratings of relief-pleasantness and omission-induced skin conductance responses during all omitted stimulations. As expected, both markers were lower to expected omissions (following 0% instructions) versus unexpected omissions (following non-0% instructions). Furthermore, they increased with increasing intensity instructions, and were moderately correlated on a trial-by-trial basis. These findings provide experimental validation of the EVA task as a screening model for putative markers of expectancy violation that might be useful for on-line tracking of exposure success. Fear Elsevier Prediction errors Elsevier Threat omission Elsevier Relief Elsevier Vervliet, Bram oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Yazdani, Morteza ELSEVIER A novel hesitant-fuzzy-based group decision approach for outsourcing risk 2021 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV006592023 volume:136 year:2021 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2020.103764 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 54.72 Künstliche Intelligenz VZ AR 136 2021 0 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.brat.2020.103764 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001273.pica (DE-627)ELV052622606 (ELSEVIER)S0005-7967(20)30218-7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 004 VZ 54.72 bkl Willems, Anne L. verfasserin aut When nothing matters: Assessing markers of expectancy violation during omissions of threat 2021transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Over the past decade, increasing evidence has pointed to the importance of threat omissions and the associated violations of expectancy for long-term gains of extinction learning and exposure treatment. Yet, the identification of valid markers of these expectancy violations remains somewhat challenging, thereby complicating the translation of these scientific discoveries into viable therapeutic interventions. In order to fill this gap, we developed the expectancy violation assessment (EVA) task in which participants are presented with probability (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) and intensity (weak, moderate, strong) information of an upcoming electrical stimulation, time-locked by a countdown clock. Most trials, however, did not contain the electrical stimulation and therefore constituted a violation of threat expectancies. We recorded subjective ratings of relief-pleasantness and omission-induced skin conductance responses during all omitted stimulations. As expected, both markers were lower to expected omissions (following 0% instructions) versus unexpected omissions (following non-0% instructions). Furthermore, they increased with increasing intensity instructions, and were moderately correlated on a trial-by-trial basis. These findings provide experimental validation of the EVA task as a screening model for putative markers of expectancy violation that might be useful for on-line tracking of exposure success. Over the past decade, increasing evidence has pointed to the importance of threat omissions and the associated violations of expectancy for long-term gains of extinction learning and exposure treatment. Yet, the identification of valid markers of these expectancy violations remains somewhat challenging, thereby complicating the translation of these scientific discoveries into viable therapeutic interventions. In order to fill this gap, we developed the expectancy violation assessment (EVA) task in which participants are presented with probability (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) and intensity (weak, moderate, strong) information of an upcoming electrical stimulation, time-locked by a countdown clock. Most trials, however, did not contain the electrical stimulation and therefore constituted a violation of threat expectancies. We recorded subjective ratings of relief-pleasantness and omission-induced skin conductance responses during all omitted stimulations. As expected, both markers were lower to expected omissions (following 0% instructions) versus unexpected omissions (following non-0% instructions). Furthermore, they increased with increasing intensity instructions, and were moderately correlated on a trial-by-trial basis. These findings provide experimental validation of the EVA task as a screening model for putative markers of expectancy violation that might be useful for on-line tracking of exposure success. Fear Elsevier Prediction errors Elsevier Threat omission Elsevier Relief Elsevier Vervliet, Bram oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Yazdani, Morteza ELSEVIER A novel hesitant-fuzzy-based group decision approach for outsourcing risk 2021 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV006592023 volume:136 year:2021 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2020.103764 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 54.72 Künstliche Intelligenz VZ AR 136 2021 0 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.brat.2020.103764 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001273.pica (DE-627)ELV052622606 (ELSEVIER)S0005-7967(20)30218-7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 004 VZ 54.72 bkl Willems, Anne L. verfasserin aut When nothing matters: Assessing markers of expectancy violation during omissions of threat 2021transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Over the past decade, increasing evidence has pointed to the importance of threat omissions and the associated violations of expectancy for long-term gains of extinction learning and exposure treatment. Yet, the identification of valid markers of these expectancy violations remains somewhat challenging, thereby complicating the translation of these scientific discoveries into viable therapeutic interventions. In order to fill this gap, we developed the expectancy violation assessment (EVA) task in which participants are presented with probability (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) and intensity (weak, moderate, strong) information of an upcoming electrical stimulation, time-locked by a countdown clock. Most trials, however, did not contain the electrical stimulation and therefore constituted a violation of threat expectancies. We recorded subjective ratings of relief-pleasantness and omission-induced skin conductance responses during all omitted stimulations. As expected, both markers were lower to expected omissions (following 0% instructions) versus unexpected omissions (following non-0% instructions). Furthermore, they increased with increasing intensity instructions, and were moderately correlated on a trial-by-trial basis. These findings provide experimental validation of the EVA task as a screening model for putative markers of expectancy violation that might be useful for on-line tracking of exposure success. Over the past decade, increasing evidence has pointed to the importance of threat omissions and the associated violations of expectancy for long-term gains of extinction learning and exposure treatment. Yet, the identification of valid markers of these expectancy violations remains somewhat challenging, thereby complicating the translation of these scientific discoveries into viable therapeutic interventions. In order to fill this gap, we developed the expectancy violation assessment (EVA) task in which participants are presented with probability (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) and intensity (weak, moderate, strong) information of an upcoming electrical stimulation, time-locked by a countdown clock. Most trials, however, did not contain the electrical stimulation and therefore constituted a violation of threat expectancies. We recorded subjective ratings of relief-pleasantness and omission-induced skin conductance responses during all omitted stimulations. As expected, both markers were lower to expected omissions (following 0% instructions) versus unexpected omissions (following non-0% instructions). Furthermore, they increased with increasing intensity instructions, and were moderately correlated on a trial-by-trial basis. These findings provide experimental validation of the EVA task as a screening model for putative markers of expectancy violation that might be useful for on-line tracking of exposure success. Fear Elsevier Prediction errors Elsevier Threat omission Elsevier Relief Elsevier Vervliet, Bram oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Yazdani, Morteza ELSEVIER A novel hesitant-fuzzy-based group decision approach for outsourcing risk 2021 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV006592023 volume:136 year:2021 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2020.103764 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 54.72 Künstliche Intelligenz VZ AR 136 2021 0 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in A novel hesitant-fuzzy-based group decision approach for outsourcing risk Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:136 year:2021 pages:0 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in A novel hesitant-fuzzy-based group decision approach for outsourcing risk Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:136 year:2021 pages:0 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| bklname |
Künstliche Intelligenz |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Fear Prediction errors Threat omission Relief |
| dewey-raw |
004 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
A novel hesitant-fuzzy-based group decision approach for outsourcing risk |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Willems, Anne L. @@aut@@ Vervliet, Bram @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2021-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
ELV006592023 |
| dewey-sort |
14 |
| id |
ELV052622606 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV052622606</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230626033520.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">210910s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.brat.2020.103764</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">/cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001273.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV052622606</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0005-7967(20)30218-7</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">004</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">54.72</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Willems, Anne L.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">When nothing matters: Assessing markers of expectancy violation during omissions of threat</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Over the past decade, increasing evidence has pointed to the importance of threat omissions and the associated violations of expectancy for long-term gains of extinction learning and exposure treatment. Yet, the identification of valid markers of these expectancy violations remains somewhat challenging, thereby complicating the translation of these scientific discoveries into viable therapeutic interventions. In order to fill this gap, we developed the expectancy violation assessment (EVA) task in which participants are presented with probability (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) and intensity (weak, moderate, strong) information of an upcoming electrical stimulation, time-locked by a countdown clock. Most trials, however, did not contain the electrical stimulation and therefore constituted a violation of threat expectancies. We recorded subjective ratings of relief-pleasantness and omission-induced skin conductance responses during all omitted stimulations. As expected, both markers were lower to expected omissions (following 0% instructions) versus unexpected omissions (following non-0% instructions). Furthermore, they increased with increasing intensity instructions, and were moderately correlated on a trial-by-trial basis. These findings provide experimental validation of the EVA task as a screening model for putative markers of expectancy violation that might be useful for on-line tracking of exposure success.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Over the past decade, increasing evidence has pointed to the importance of threat omissions and the associated violations of expectancy for long-term gains of extinction learning and exposure treatment. Yet, the identification of valid markers of these expectancy violations remains somewhat challenging, thereby complicating the translation of these scientific discoveries into viable therapeutic interventions. In order to fill this gap, we developed the expectancy violation assessment (EVA) task in which participants are presented with probability (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) and intensity (weak, moderate, strong) information of an upcoming electrical stimulation, time-locked by a countdown clock. Most trials, however, did not contain the electrical stimulation and therefore constituted a violation of threat expectancies. We recorded subjective ratings of relief-pleasantness and omission-induced skin conductance responses during all omitted stimulations. As expected, both markers were lower to expected omissions (following 0% instructions) versus unexpected omissions (following non-0% instructions). Furthermore, they increased with increasing intensity instructions, and were moderately correlated on a trial-by-trial basis. These findings provide experimental validation of the EVA task as a screening model for putative markers of expectancy violation that might be useful for on-line tracking of exposure success.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Fear</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Prediction errors</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Threat omission</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Relief</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Vervliet, Bram</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="a">Yazdani, Morteza ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">A novel hesitant-fuzzy-based group decision approach for outsourcing risk</subfield><subfield code="d">2021</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV006592023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:136</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2020.103764</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">54.72</subfield><subfield code="j">Künstliche Intelligenz</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">136</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="h">0</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Willems, Anne L. |
| spellingShingle |
Willems, Anne L. ddc 004 bkl 54.72 Elsevier Fear Elsevier Prediction errors Elsevier Threat omission Elsevier Relief When nothing matters: Assessing markers of expectancy violation during omissions of threat |
| authorStr |
Willems, Anne L. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)ELV006592023 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
004 - Data processing & computer science |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
elsevier |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
004 VZ 54.72 bkl When nothing matters: Assessing markers of expectancy violation during omissions of threat Fear Elsevier Prediction errors Elsevier Threat omission Elsevier Relief Elsevier |
| topic |
ddc 004 bkl 54.72 Elsevier Fear Elsevier Prediction errors Elsevier Threat omission Elsevier Relief |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 004 bkl 54.72 Elsevier Fear Elsevier Prediction errors Elsevier Threat omission Elsevier Relief |
| topic_browse |
ddc 004 bkl 54.72 Elsevier Fear Elsevier Prediction errors Elsevier Threat omission Elsevier Relief |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| author2_variant |
b v bv |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
A novel hesitant-fuzzy-based group decision approach for outsourcing risk |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
ELV006592023 |
| dewey-tens |
000 - Computer science, knowledge & systems |
| hierarchy_top_title |
A novel hesitant-fuzzy-based group decision approach for outsourcing risk |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)ELV006592023 |
| title |
When nothing matters: Assessing markers of expectancy violation during omissions of threat |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV052622606 (ELSEVIER)S0005-7967(20)30218-7 |
| title_full |
When nothing matters: Assessing markers of expectancy violation during omissions of threat |
| author_sort |
Willems, Anne L. |
| journal |
A novel hesitant-fuzzy-based group decision approach for outsourcing risk |
| journalStr |
A novel hesitant-fuzzy-based group decision approach for outsourcing risk |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
000 - Computer science, information & general works |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2021 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
0 |
| author_browse |
Willems, Anne L. |
| container_volume |
136 |
| class |
004 VZ 54.72 bkl |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Willems, Anne L. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.brat.2020.103764 |
| dewey-full |
004 |
| title_sort |
when nothing matters: assessing markers of expectancy violation during omissions of threat |
| title_auth |
When nothing matters: Assessing markers of expectancy violation during omissions of threat |
| abstract |
Over the past decade, increasing evidence has pointed to the importance of threat omissions and the associated violations of expectancy for long-term gains of extinction learning and exposure treatment. Yet, the identification of valid markers of these expectancy violations remains somewhat challenging, thereby complicating the translation of these scientific discoveries into viable therapeutic interventions. In order to fill this gap, we developed the expectancy violation assessment (EVA) task in which participants are presented with probability (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) and intensity (weak, moderate, strong) information of an upcoming electrical stimulation, time-locked by a countdown clock. Most trials, however, did not contain the electrical stimulation and therefore constituted a violation of threat expectancies. We recorded subjective ratings of relief-pleasantness and omission-induced skin conductance responses during all omitted stimulations. As expected, both markers were lower to expected omissions (following 0% instructions) versus unexpected omissions (following non-0% instructions). Furthermore, they increased with increasing intensity instructions, and were moderately correlated on a trial-by-trial basis. These findings provide experimental validation of the EVA task as a screening model for putative markers of expectancy violation that might be useful for on-line tracking of exposure success. |
| abstractGer |
Over the past decade, increasing evidence has pointed to the importance of threat omissions and the associated violations of expectancy for long-term gains of extinction learning and exposure treatment. Yet, the identification of valid markers of these expectancy violations remains somewhat challenging, thereby complicating the translation of these scientific discoveries into viable therapeutic interventions. In order to fill this gap, we developed the expectancy violation assessment (EVA) task in which participants are presented with probability (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) and intensity (weak, moderate, strong) information of an upcoming electrical stimulation, time-locked by a countdown clock. Most trials, however, did not contain the electrical stimulation and therefore constituted a violation of threat expectancies. We recorded subjective ratings of relief-pleasantness and omission-induced skin conductance responses during all omitted stimulations. As expected, both markers were lower to expected omissions (following 0% instructions) versus unexpected omissions (following non-0% instructions). Furthermore, they increased with increasing intensity instructions, and were moderately correlated on a trial-by-trial basis. These findings provide experimental validation of the EVA task as a screening model for putative markers of expectancy violation that might be useful for on-line tracking of exposure success. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Over the past decade, increasing evidence has pointed to the importance of threat omissions and the associated violations of expectancy for long-term gains of extinction learning and exposure treatment. Yet, the identification of valid markers of these expectancy violations remains somewhat challenging, thereby complicating the translation of these scientific discoveries into viable therapeutic interventions. In order to fill this gap, we developed the expectancy violation assessment (EVA) task in which participants are presented with probability (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) and intensity (weak, moderate, strong) information of an upcoming electrical stimulation, time-locked by a countdown clock. Most trials, however, did not contain the electrical stimulation and therefore constituted a violation of threat expectancies. We recorded subjective ratings of relief-pleasantness and omission-induced skin conductance responses during all omitted stimulations. As expected, both markers were lower to expected omissions (following 0% instructions) versus unexpected omissions (following non-0% instructions). Furthermore, they increased with increasing intensity instructions, and were moderately correlated on a trial-by-trial basis. These findings provide experimental validation of the EVA task as a screening model for putative markers of expectancy violation that might be useful for on-line tracking of exposure success. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U |
| title_short |
When nothing matters: Assessing markers of expectancy violation during omissions of threat |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2020.103764 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Vervliet, Bram |
| author2Str |
Vervliet, Bram |
| ppnlink |
ELV006592023 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth |
| doi_str |
10.1016/j.brat.2020.103764 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T16:40:27.138Z |
| _version_ |
1803848544044449792 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV052622606</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230626033520.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">210910s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.brat.2020.103764</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">/cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001273.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV052622606</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0005-7967(20)30218-7</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">004</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">54.72</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Willems, Anne L.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">When nothing matters: Assessing markers of expectancy violation during omissions of threat</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Over the past decade, increasing evidence has pointed to the importance of threat omissions and the associated violations of expectancy for long-term gains of extinction learning and exposure treatment. Yet, the identification of valid markers of these expectancy violations remains somewhat challenging, thereby complicating the translation of these scientific discoveries into viable therapeutic interventions. In order to fill this gap, we developed the expectancy violation assessment (EVA) task in which participants are presented with probability (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) and intensity (weak, moderate, strong) information of an upcoming electrical stimulation, time-locked by a countdown clock. Most trials, however, did not contain the electrical stimulation and therefore constituted a violation of threat expectancies. We recorded subjective ratings of relief-pleasantness and omission-induced skin conductance responses during all omitted stimulations. As expected, both markers were lower to expected omissions (following 0% instructions) versus unexpected omissions (following non-0% instructions). Furthermore, they increased with increasing intensity instructions, and were moderately correlated on a trial-by-trial basis. These findings provide experimental validation of the EVA task as a screening model for putative markers of expectancy violation that might be useful for on-line tracking of exposure success.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Over the past decade, increasing evidence has pointed to the importance of threat omissions and the associated violations of expectancy for long-term gains of extinction learning and exposure treatment. Yet, the identification of valid markers of these expectancy violations remains somewhat challenging, thereby complicating the translation of these scientific discoveries into viable therapeutic interventions. In order to fill this gap, we developed the expectancy violation assessment (EVA) task in which participants are presented with probability (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) and intensity (weak, moderate, strong) information of an upcoming electrical stimulation, time-locked by a countdown clock. Most trials, however, did not contain the electrical stimulation and therefore constituted a violation of threat expectancies. We recorded subjective ratings of relief-pleasantness and omission-induced skin conductance responses during all omitted stimulations. As expected, both markers were lower to expected omissions (following 0% instructions) versus unexpected omissions (following non-0% instructions). Furthermore, they increased with increasing intensity instructions, and were moderately correlated on a trial-by-trial basis. These findings provide experimental validation of the EVA task as a screening model for putative markers of expectancy violation that might be useful for on-line tracking of exposure success.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Fear</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Prediction errors</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Threat omission</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Relief</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Vervliet, Bram</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="a">Yazdani, Morteza ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">A novel hesitant-fuzzy-based group decision approach for outsourcing risk</subfield><subfield code="d">2021</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV006592023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:136</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2020.103764</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">54.72</subfield><subfield code="j">Künstliche Intelligenz</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">136</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="h">0</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.401636 |