StartleReflex.ppt - PowerPoint Presentation

The Startle Reflex:A Measure of Emotion and “Attention”

John J. Curtin, Ph.D.University of Wisconsin, Madison

REFERENCES

Anthony, B. J. (1985). In the blink of an eye: Implications of the reflex modification for information processing. In P. K. Ackles, J. R. Jennings, & M. G. M. Coles (Eds.), Advances in Psychophysiology (Vol. 1, pp. 167-218). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press

Bradley, M. M., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (1990). Startle reflex modification: Emotion or attention? Psychophysiology, 27, 513-522.

Bradley, M. M., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (1991). Startle and emotion: Lateral acoustic probes and the bilateral blink. Psychophysiology., 28, 285-295.

Bradley, M. M., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (1993). Pictures as prepulse: Attention and emotion in startle modification. Psychophysiology., 30, 541-545.

Bradley, M. M. & Lang, P. J. (2000). Affective reactions to acoustic stimuli. Psychophysiology., 37, 204-215.

Bradley, M. M., Lang, P. J., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1993). Emotion, novelty, and the startle reflex: Habituation in humans. Behavioral Neuroscience., 107, 970-980.

Bradley, M. M., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (1996). Picture media and emotion: Effects of a sustained affective content. Psychophysiology., 33, 662-670.

Bradley, M. M., Lang, P. J., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1993). Emotion, novelty, and the startle reflex: Habituation in humans. Behavioral Neuroscience., 107, 970-980.

Curtin, J. J., Lang, A. R., Patrick, C. J., & Stritzke, W. G. K. (1998). Alcohol and fear-potentiated startle: The role of competing cognitive demands in the stress-reducing effects of intoxication. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 547-565.

Curtin, J. J., Patrick, C. J., Lang, A. R., Cacioppo, J. T., & Birbaumer, N. (2001). Alcohol affects emotion through cognition. Psychological Science., 12, 527-531.

Cuthbert, B. N., Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1996). Probing picture perception: Activation and emotion. Psychophysiology., 33, 103-111.

Cuthbert, B. N. Schupp, H., Bradley, M., McManis, M., & Lang P. (1998). Probing affective picturesL Attended startle and tone probes. Psychophysiology, 35, 344-347.

Dichter, G. S., Tomarken, A. J., & Baucom, B. R. (2002). Startle modulation before, during and after exposure to emotional stimuli. International Journal of Psychophysiology., 43, 191-196.

Grillon, C., Davis, M., & Phillips, R. G. (1997). Fear-potentiated startle conditioning in humans: Explicit and contextual cue conditioning following paired versus unpaired training. Psychophysiology, 34, 451-458.

Miller, M. W., Curtin, J. J., & Patrick, C. J. (1999). A startle probe methodology for investigating the effects of active avoidance on negative emotional reactivity. Biological Psychology., 50, 235-257.

REFERENCES

Miller, M. W., Patrick, C. J., & Levenston, G. K. (2002). Affective imagery and the startle response: Probing mechanisms of modulation during pleasant scenes, personal experiences, and discrete negative emotions. Psychophysiology, 39, 519-529

Patrick, C. J., Berthot, B. D., & Moore, J. D. (1996). Diazepam blocks fear-potentiated startle in humans. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105 , 89-96.

Spence, K. W., & Runquist, W. H. (1958). Temporal effects of conditioned fear on the eyelid reflex. Journal of Experimental Psychology., 55, 613-616.

Stritzke, W. G. K., Patrick, C. J., & Lang, A. R. (1995). Alcohol and human emotion: A multidimensional analysis incorporating startle-probe methodology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 114-122.

van-Boxtel, A., Boelhouwer, A. J. W., & Bos, A. R. (1998). Optimal EMG signal bandwidth and interelectrode distance for the recording of acoustic, electrocutaneous and photic blink reflexes. Psychophysiology, 35, 690-697.

Vrana, S. R., Spence, E. L., & Lang, P. J. (1988). The startle probe response: A new measure of emotion? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 487-491.

REFERENCES

The Startle Reflex and Emotion

Response matching hypothesiso Startle reflex is a defensive response

o The magnitude of the reflex is INCREASED when the organism is fearful (fear potentiated startle; FPS)

o The magnitude of the reflex is DECREASED when the organism is “feeling good”***

Measurement of the Startle Reflex

Measurement

o Elicited with brief burst of white noise (“startle probe”) presented over headphones

o Eyeblink response is indexed by recording electrical activity in the orbicularis oculi muscle

Amygdala

CG LH PVH RPC

Freezing Blood Pressure

Stress Hormones

StartleReflex

Neural Circuitry of Fear, Ledoux et al.,

Amygdala

CG LH PVH RPC


Stress Hormones

StartleReflex

SensoryThalamus

Auditory FearStimulus


Amygdala

CG LH PVH RPC


Stress Hormones

StartleReflex

SensoryThalamus

AuditoryCortex



Amygdala

CG LH PVH RPC


Stress Hormones

StartleReflex

SensoryThalamus

AuditoryCortex

Association Cortex


Hippocampal Formation


Neural Circuitry of Startle Reflex

Amygdala

Nucleus ReticularisPontis Caudalis (RPC)

Cochlear Root Neurons

Spinal & Facial Motonuerons

Abrupt noise (probe) Startle Reflex

Fear conditioning/Shock sensitization

• Lesions of block FPS• Electrical stim enhances

startle reflex

Fear Conditioning and Startle in Animals

o Brown, Kalish, and Farber (1951) is classic animal studyo Michael Davis and colleagues have demonstrated:

Increased FPS with increased shock intensity Increased FPS with anxiogenics Decreased FPS with anxiolytics

Brown, Kalish, and Farber (1951)

0

10

20

30

Block 1 Block 2 Block 3

Extinction

Control

Fear conditioned

Fear Conditioning and Startle in Humans

Spence & Runquist, 1958o Forward and backward pairing of CS (light) with

shock UCSo Airpuff probes presented at 500 and 4500ms post

CS onseto Measured eyeblink closure

8

10.5

13

15.5

18

0 10 20 30 40

4.5s Forward

4.5s Backward

.5s Forward

.5s Backward

Attentional Modulation of Startle

Attentional effects on reflex magnitudeo Reviewed in Anthony (1985)

o Increased if matches modality of foreground stimuluso Decreased as more attention is directed to

foreground Reaction time task (time course, covary with HR) Interest level (Nudes vs. basket; tones vs. music; faces vs.

blank screen)

Anthony & Graham (1985)

175

200

225

250

275

Match MisMatch

Modality

Bli

nk

mag

. (A

-D u

nit

s)

Simons & Zelson (1985)

100

125

150

Interesting Dull

Foreground Inteserest

Bli

nk

mag

. (A

-D u

nit

s)

Slide Viewing Paradigm

Vrana, Spence, & Lang, 1988o 36 slides (12 pleasant, 12 neutral, 12 unpleasant)o 6s presentation with 16-24s ITIo 9 unpredictable probe presentations within valence and

9 ITI startles

300

350

400

450

Pleasant Neutral Unpleasant

Additional Measures in Slide Viewing

Attention or Emotion in Slide Viewing

Bradley, Cuthbert & Lang (1990)o Compared startle response to acoustic vs. visual

probes during slide viewing

o Regardless of probe modality, same direction of linear valence effect was observed

Acoustic Probes

800

850

900

950

1000


Visual Probes

440

465

490

515

540


Lateralization of the Reflex

Bradley, Cuthbert, and Lang (1991)o Monoaural probes to left and right ears during slide

viewing and recorded left and right orbicularis startle response [see also, Bradley, Cuthbert and Lang, 1996]

o No valence modulation elicited by right ear probeso Response is larger on ipsilateral measurement siteo No interaction of measurement site with slide valence

Left Ear Probe

150

200

250

300

Left orbicularis Right orbicularis

PleasantNeutralUnpleasant

Right Ear Probe

150

200

250

300

Left orbicularis Right orbicularis

Pleasant

Neutral

Unpleasant

Attention and Valence in Picture Processing

Cuthbert, Schupp, Bradley, McManis, & Lang (1998)o Tones and probes presented during slide and ITIo Task was to press button to indicate detection of

match (e.g., probe-probe) during ITIo Startle response to probe displays typical valence

effecto P3 to probes (and tones) shows attentional effect to

all affective material

Right Ear Probe

12

16

20

24

Attend/Task No-Task


Startle Response

100

107

114

121

Attend/Task No-task


Imagery and Startle

Miller, Patrick, & Levenston (2002)o Participants trained to image standard or personal

pleasant neutral or unpleasant scripts

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Exp 1 Exp2:Standard

Exp2:Personal

Blin

k m

ag

(z-

sc

ore

)

Pleasant

Neutral

Unpleasant

Time Course of Response in Slide Viewing

Bradley, Cuthbert, and Lang, 1993o Examined startle across the slide viewing time-courseo Early “pre-pulse”/attentional effects o Later valence effects

3

4

5

6

300 800 1300 3800 6300 9800

Positive

Neutral

Negative

3

4

5

6

Early Late

Positive

Neutral

Negative

Arousal Effects

Cuthbert, Bradley, & Lang, 1996o Varied valence (pleasant, neutral, and unpleasant)

and arousal (3 levels) ratings of slideso 3 probe intensities (80, 95, and 105 dB)o Skin and HR effects vs. Startle effects

Habituation of the Startle Reflex

Bradley, M. M., Lang, P. J., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1993). Emotion, novelty, and the startle reflex: Habituation in humans. Behavioral Neuroscience., 107(6), 970-980.

Previous research with both animal and human Ss has shown that startle reflex magnitude is potentiated in an aversive stimulus context, relative to responses elicited in a neutral or appetitive context. In the present experiment, the same pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral picture stimuli were repeatedly presented to human Ss. Startle reflex habituation was assessed in each stimulus context and was compared with the habituation patterns of heart rate, electrodermal, and facial corrugator muscle responses. All systems showed initial differentiation among affective picture contents and general habituation over trials. The startle reflex alone, however, continued to differentiate among pleasant, neutral, and unpleasant pictures throughout the presentation series. These results suggest that (1) the startle probe reflex is relatively uninfluenced by stimulus novelty, (2) the startle modulatory circuit (identified with amygdala-reticular connections in animals) varies systematically with affective valence, and (3) the modulatory influence is less subject to habituation than is the obligatory startle pathway or responses in other somatic and autonomic systems.

Discrete Periods in Slide Viewing

Dichter, Tomarken, & Baucom, 2002o Examined startle before (1.5-2.5s), during (3.5-4.5s) and

after (1.5-2.5s) a slide viewing periodo Valence cued with arrow followed 4s later by slide

40

45

50

55

60

Positive

Neutral

Negative

Startle and Mood effects

Bradley, Cuthbert, & Lang, 1996o Presented slides blocked on valence (24 per valence)o Examined slide viewing and inter-slide interval

effectso Included startle, corrugator, SC and HR. Also,

affective judgment of words

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

First half Second half

Postive

Neutral

Negative

Startle during Sound Perception

Bradley & Lang, 2000o 60 affective sounds (listen to example)o Visual startle probeso Observed typical linear valence effect for startle

Stress Response Dampening Model

o Alcohol intoxication produces a direct, pharmacological suppression of activity in the defensive (fear/anxiety) system.

o Therefore, alcohol consumption is reinforcing -- particularly when consumed in stressful contexts.

Method

o Standard emotional slide viewing paradigmo 36 slides (12 pos, 12 neut, 12 neg)o Slides presented for 6 seconds

Paradigm

Participantso 36 social drinkers in 2 beverage conditions: Alcohol

(0.075%) and No-alcohol

o Startle responseo Corrugator (frown) EMGo Autonomic measures (SC, HR)o Slide ratings (valence, arousal)

Measures

Stritzke, Patrick, & Lang, (1995). Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 114-122.

Valence Modulated Startle

-2

-1

0

1

2


Valence

Bli

nk

mag

nit

ud

e (z

-sco

re)

Alcohol does not affect the “valence modulated” startle response. (i.e. sig. linear effect in both groups)

Overall Startle Response

0

4

8

12

No alcohol Alcohol

Beverage condition

Bli

nk

mag

nit

ud

e (m

irco

volt

s)

Alcohol produces a significant reduction in overall blink magnitude (and latency, not displayed).

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6


Valence

SC

R (

mic

rosi

emen

s)

Skin Conductance Response

Alcohol does reduce arousal response, but to all emotional slides, regardless of slide valence.

Diazepam and Startle

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Placebo 10 mg 15mg

Drug condition

Fe

ar

po

ten

tia

tio

n

Patrick, Berthot, & Moore (1996)o Placebo or diazepam (Valium)o Negative and neutral slide viewing paradigmo Dose dependent effect of diazepam on fear

potentiated startle to negative slides

o Alcohol intoxication reduces “attentional capacity” (Alcohol myopia)

o Alcohol focuses attention on the most salient stimuli in the environment

o If the most salient stimulus in the environment is pleasant, stress response will be reduced

o Note: If most salient stimulus is stressor, stress response will be increased

Attention Allocation Model

Participants

Measures

o 48 social drinkers in 2 beverage conditions: Alcohol (0.075%) and No-alcohol

• Startle response• Corrugator (frown) EMG• Autonomic measures (SC, HR)

Curtin, Lang, Patrick, & Stritzke, W. G. K. (1998). Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 547-565.

Method

o 8 blocks alternating between Shock threat and Safe

o 6 positive slides in each block

o 6 startle probes in each block - half during slide presentation (distraction) - half during inter-slide interval (no-distraction)

o Fear poteniated startle (FPS) is the difference between startle response in Shock threat vs. Safe blocks

!- Slide - Startle probe

Key

! ! !! ! ! ! !!

Method

Skin Conductance

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

No-alcohol Alcohol

mic

rosi

emen

s

Safe

Threat

Corrugator Level

-0.5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

No-alcohol Alcohol

mic

rovo

lts

Safe

Threat

Tonic Levels of SC and Corrugator

o Threat manipulation increased SCL and Corrugator level.

o Beverage does not moderate this threat effect.

Skin Conductance

0

2

4

6

8

No-alcohol Alcohol

mic

rosi

emen

s

Safe

Threat

Heart Rate

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

No-alcohol Alcohol

BP

M c

han

ge

Safe

Threat

Corrugator Response

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

No-alcohol Alcohol

mic

rovo

lts

Safe

Threat

Phasic Response to Threat Cue

o Sig. threat effect in phasic response to block onset light cue

o Beverage did not moderate this effect

0

2

4

6

8

10

No-distraction Distraction

FP

S

(mir

covo

lts)

No-alcohol

Alcohol

o In no-distraction condition, sig. FPS observed in both beverage groups.

o In distraction condition, sig. FPS observed only in no-alcohol group.

Threshold for significant FPS

Fear Potentiated Startle

Method

Participants

o 48 social drinkers in 2 beverage conditions Alcohol (0.08%) and No-alcohol

Measures

o Startle responseo Event related potentials (focused on P3)o Task performance

Curtin et al., (2001). Psychological Science

Trial Structure

Startle Shock Button press

S1 ! S2 ^

300ms 1400ms 300ms 200ms 300ms

S1 Threat-focus: Animal/Body-part Divided attention: Animal/Body-part or Animal/Body-part

Method

• 24 blocks of trials (20 trials per block)– 8 Threat-focus blocks– 16 Divided attention blocks

Block Structure

Next Block: SHOCK Only

Read each word as it is presentedShocks to animal words

HEAD

NECK

BEAR

!!!SHOCK!!!

Next Block: TASK & SHOCK

Press button quickly to square after GREEN wordDo not press button after RED word

Shocks to ANIMAL words

HAND

MOUTH

TIGER

!!!SHOCK!!!

10 of 10 responses credited in this block

Fear Potentiated Startle

0

3

6

9

12

No-alcohol Alcohol

FP

S (

mic

rovo

lts)

Threat-focus

Divided attention

o In threat focus, no sig. difference in FPS between beverage groups

o In divided attention, FPS sig. reduced

The Next Logical Step

40

65

90

115

140

No Safety Safety

CSM

CSP

Deliberate Emotion Regulation

50556065707580859095

100

Pre

-re

gu

lati

on

Su

pp

ress

Mai

nta

in

En

han

ce

Neutral

Negative

Deliberate Regulation when Intoxicated

4546474849505152535455

SUPPRESS MAINTAIN ENHANCE4546474849505152535455

SUPPRESS MAINTAIN ENHANCE

Sober Intoxicated (n=3)

Fear vs. Anxiety

Grillon, C., Davis, M., & Phillips, R. G. (1997). Fear-potentiated startle conditioning in humans: Explicit and contextual cue conditioning following paired versus unpaired training. Psychophysiology, 34, 451-458.

Conditioned fear in response to explicit and contextual cues was examined using the startle reflex in 3 groups of college students ( N = 58) over 2 sessions separated by 4-5 days. The CS was paired with an aversive unconditioned stimulus (UCS; shock) during conditioning in the paired but not in the unpaired group. In the reaction time (RT) group, the UCS was a nonaversive visual signal for an RT task. In the paired group, the CS potentiated startle in the postconditioning phase. This conditioned response was fully retained over the retention interval. There was no substantial change in baseline startle (startle delivered in the absence of CS). By contrast, startle was not potentiated by the CS in the unpaired group, but baseline startle was increased from Session 1 to Session 2. In the RT group, startle was not affected by the CS, and baseline startle was reduced from Session 1 to Session 2. These results suggest that paired presentations of a CS and an aversive UCS result in conditioned fear in response to the CS but little contextual fear, whereas unpaired presentations of a CS and UCS lead to poor explicit cue conditioning but substantial contextual fear.

Affective Consequences of Active Coping

Miller, Curtin, & Patrick, 1999o Examined active vs. passive coping in a threat paradigm

o 4 groups Active tapping (contingent blasts) Passive tapping (yoked/non-contingent) Passive no-tapping (yoked) Control tapping (no blasts)

o Task included string of 30 asterisks during CS+ and CS- trials: Tapping during CS+ for tapping groups Blasts (.5s, 115dB) during CS+ for threat groups

o Used airpuff as startle probe

Active Avoidance and Behavioral Activation

1514131211109876543210-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Active Tapping CS+

Active Tapping CS-

Passive Tapping CS+

Passive Tapping CS-

Time After CS Onset (s)

HR

Ch

an

ge

(B

PM

)

Active Tapping Passive Tapping Passive No Tapping Control Tapping46

48

50

52

54

CS+CS-

Blin

k M

ag

nit

ud

e (

T-s

co

res

)

Active Avoidance and Behavioral Activation

Emotion and Psychopathy

47

49

51

53

Non-psychopaths Pure antisocial Psychopaths

Bli

nk

mag

. (T

-sco

re)

Pleasant

Neutral

Unpleasant

Patrick, Bradley, & Lang (1993)o Groups did not differ in self-report of emotional

response to the slides

o Psychopaths did not display the typical potentiation of startle to the negatively valent slides

Measurement and Processing Issues

Data acquisitiono Elicited with white noise probe (95 – 105 dB)o Sampled at 1000Hzo Broadband online filter (.015 - 500Hz)o Include habituation probes

Data Processingo Epoch around triggers (-50 to 250ms window)o Bandpass filter (30 - 500Hz; van-Boxtel et al., 1998)o Rectify and lowpass filter (30 Hz)o Baseline correct

Scoring Responseso Max response in 20 – 120 windowo No response trialso Latency of response

Documents

StartleReflex.ppt - PowerPoint Presentation