2. state vs trait Flashcards
state anxiety
increased threat value assigned to a situation
judgement of specific stimulus or context as threatening
bottom up - subcortical/sensory areas + PFC (elaborate in cortex)
high state not exhibit high trait
trait anxiety
consistent direction of attention towards a threat
tendency - constant attention related to attentional strategies
generalised anxiety and/or situations of a specific type
top down - PFC to subcortical areas
‘apprehension’ can fluctuate in magnitude over an extended period in the absence of cues
assoc w/hypervigilance - heightened arousal, neg affect and ANS activation in environ monitoring
most trait exhibit high state
emotional stroop
name font colour
ignore word meaning - vary valence
RT as consequence of word valuation interference
STATE - affective valence grabs attention
response potentiated in high trait anxiety and reduced in low
emotional dot probe task
macloed and mathews
judge if 1 or 2 dots presented in between presentation of words of high or low valence - told will be a memory test
sofa stab
**
high valence grabs attention - incogruent dots = slower RT
high anxious increase RT when dots congruent with valent word and reduced/absent in low anxiety (trait)
emotional visual distractor task
ohman
orienting responses: 4-9 squares w/threat or neutral images - vary atentional resources required to perform the task respond to odd image out - threat in presence of neutral - fast - neutral in presence of threat - slow
dot probe - why reaction times faster when dot congruent with threat than when congruent with neutral?
high anxious: attention grabbed by word valence? -
orient more to threat related processes (bottom up)
OR less able to orient away from the word valent stimulus? (top down) - once attention with threat stimuli - find more difficult to remove attention to something else
two aspects of attentional biases that may be different in people with high anxiety
importance of distinguishing between top down and bottom up attentional biases in high anxiety persons
(treatment)
either diminish hypersensitivity to threat stimuli - made less hyperthreatening
OR
lack of top down control to be able to reallocate attention - teach/train to shift attention to non threatening items (more cog-attentional intervention)
what do stoop, visual distractor tasks and dot probe relate to in anxiety
work on the assumption that anxiety amplifies bottom up
- signal a preattentive threat mechanism (hypervigilant in trait anxiety)
before conscious allocation of attention - potentially subcortical system - detects and biases attention in favour of threat
high valent stimuli as distractors slows RT down
posner attentional modules
attention not unitary - structurally and functionally independent systems work co-operatively
alerting
orienting
executive control
posner: alerting
maintain appropriate sensitivity to percieve and process stimuli
right frontal and parietal cortices
posner: orienting
selection of info among sensory stimuli
superior parietal, FEF and temporoparietal junction
posner: exec control
conflict resolution and voluntary action
midline frontal, ACG and LPFC
bishop duncan and lawrence
individual differences in anxiety and attention HYP
the extent threat detection is modulated by attention is dependent on anxiety levels
high anxiety: heightened preattentive orientation to threat stimuli and heightened likelihood that threat will capture attention
low anxiety: mediated specifically by threat cues presence
bishop duncan and lawrence
METHOD
fMRI - houses (PHG) and Faces (FFA)
match on whether or not identical (2 horizonal, 2 vertical - cross)
vary which to attend to - alter attention to threat stimuli
- high vs low trait anxiety
does amyg detect?
bishop duncan and lawrence
FINDINGS
low: reduced amyg response to unattended vs attended fear face
- support pessoa - attentional modulation
high: heightened response to BOTH attended and unattended threat (support vuillemeir)
bishop duncan and lawrence
possible explanations for results
** amyg not respond in equal mag to threat
- amyg show early threat processing
- hyposensitive of thalamo-amyg route in high anxiety
- heightens response to mild threat - amyg requires attention or else does not process threat valence
- low anxious heighten ability to maintin focus and therefore heighten modulation of amyg to threat - anxiety ma have independent role of both top down and bottom up process in attentional allocation
sommerville, whalen and kelley
sustained vigilance
sustained vigilance of ambiguous/distant threat represented by tonic engagement of BNST
sommerville, whalen and kelley
cued threat
cued threat processing mediated by bottom up processing in the amygdala
describe BNST
extended amyg in v.basal forebrain
sensitive to neuropeptide modulate in long lasting stress responses
regulated sensory thresholds throughout brain - extended mediation of arousal
connect to BLA and Hipp (context)
- potentiated sessory processing
sommerville, whalen and kelley
method
fmri high vs low trait anxiety environ. threat monitoring task simulated line fluctuate in hight - threshold = accumulation of shocks - sustained monitoring 1. controlled by own state (internal) 2. no control - state of others measure arousal (scr)
sommerville, whalen and kelley
results - SCR
line close to threshold heightened SCR in both non-control and high anxiety
sommerville, whalen and kelley
Results - BNST
bnst, r.insula and lateral cortical areas track proximity of line to threshold
exaggerated disproportionaltely in high anxiety
- exaggerated tracking of threat proximity to threshold
sommerville, whalen and kelley
Results- insula
insula:
processes interoceptive info
track across all pps
higher in high anxiety but still present in low anxiety
higher when threat is controllable > uncontrollable
**reflects results of SCR
sommerville, whalen and kelley
Results - insula explanation
insula processes SCR/ arousal as threat approached
sommerville, whalen and kelley
Results - BNST explanation
sensitivity to incoming activation
how much attention is being paid to ones interoceptive arousal to threat
lower activity = less attention to interoceptive arousal
sommerville, whalen and kelley
Results overall explanation
ability to detect interoceptive cues in body feeds into threat and attention ssystems
-more anxious may pay more attention
feedback loop: physiological feedback of interoceptive contributes to adjusted anxiety levels
sommerville, whalen and kelley
Results dl/dm PFC
heightened engagement with heightened threat proximity
- may disengage from threat to shift/orient to focal task (Topdown)
- may heighten in anticipation of aversive events - may reflect rumination as a consequence of sustained vigilance
bishop
early model of threat detection
allocation of attentional resources influenced by:
- the strength of the threat detection system by the amyg
- the strength of the top down control signal in task related processing by the LPFC and ACC (signal presence of attentional competition from threat distractors)
anxiety modulate magnitude of BOTH amyg and prefronal signls assoc with amygdala hyperresponsivity and prefrontal hyporesponsivity
bishop
extended model of threat detection
may have early detection that bias towards threat
- info may not only be exteroceptive but also interoceptive - also acts as a threat related distractor (sommerville)
prefrontal system potentially allows us to reorient away from the threat stimulus
Lpfc – top down attentional control in non emotional situations ie not relevant, spatial
ACC – was considered to be limbic but arguably also cortical - extensive connection with both areas
ACC possibly in in conflict detection and resolution – deciding between where to allocate attentional resources
high trait anxiety may have a relatively weaker top control system – inability to reorient attention to the task relative stimulus
high state anxiety more assoc with early detection biases towards specific environmental stimuli by the amygdala
pacheco-ungletti et al
ATTENTIONAL NETWORK TEST
format
ANT used to eval the efficacy of posners 3 attentional network and study its influence on anxiety
half trials: tone with fix cross
2/3 trials: asterix with fix cross (spatial cue)
following tone/cue: arrow target and arrow distractors (congruent or incongruent)
indicate the direction that the target was pointing
DV: RT + SOA = stimulus onset asynchrony
pacheco-ungletti et al
ATTENTIONAL NETWORK TEST
explain tone/cue/arrows
tone: reflect bottom up alterting
- warning that something about to happen
cue: above or below the fix cross
- spatial cue congruent/incongruent with arrows
- bottom up orienting network
arrows: top down exec control - inhibit response towards most obvious distractor direction and follow target
pacheco-ungletti et al
ATTENTIONAL NETWORK TEST
method
hyp: trait: deficits in exec control (top down)
state deficit in orienting and alerting (bottom up)
- high vs low trait anxiety
- all average trait anxiety (look at state)- anxious/non anxious mood induction
pacheco-ungletti et al
ATTENTIONAL NETWORK TEST
results
TRAIT ANXIETY
high anxiety more difficulty in controlling arrow interference than low trait anxiety (slower RT)
- no sig diff in alert/orient
- exec control prob
difficulty in responding to task demands may be understood as impoverished PFC activity in the autoreg of cog and emotional stimuli
pacheco-ungletti et al
ATTENTIONAL NETWORK TEST
results
STATE ANXIETY
state sig reduced performance in alerting/orienting in anxious mood induction>nonanxious/pos mood induction
- longer to RT to arrows when prior tone/cue than when not but no specific problem with arrow task on its own
high state modulates alerting and attention + prone tocontextual influence and vigilance
may be explained as activation of the thalamo-amyg pathway (low road) in threat detection and eval
crig - interoceptive awareness
anterior insula recieves incoming info from viscera/internal body
modulated by connections with PFC - mechanisms for top down exec control of insula in reg of anxiety responsivity
insula-PFC pathway
spino-thalamo-cortical pathway
- sensory systems - detect pain, inceroceptive awareness, feelings
- thallamus (relay centre of sensory info)
- insula (processing)
trait/ state anxiety and insula hypothesis
may be involved in bottom up (insula > PFC - state)
and top down (PFC > insula - trait) processes
high trait anxiety:
consequence of hypERactivity in the insula (more sensitive to interoceptive cues?)
OR
hyPOactivity in the PFC - deficient reg of insula output/orienting
critchley et al
testing interoceptive awareness in state/trait anxiety
HYP
subjective emotional experience related to the degree of interoceptive awareness
“viscerally aware” = more emotionally expressive/emotive
critchley et al
testing interoceptive awareness in state/trait anxiety
METHOD
fMRI
pulse detector
play back pulse as tone to pps (feedback)
tone change in pitch OR tone out of synch/delay in time
synch vs desynch
same pitch vs diff pitch
heart vs tone trial
heart: tone in synch or delayed with heart beat? (interoceptive awareness)
tone: control - is the pitch in the note different?
critchley et al
testing interoceptive awareness in state/trait anxiety
FINDINGS
large variation in accuracy -
some high some at chance level
greater detection = greater ant.insular activity
+ rated anxiety as higher - correlated with insula activity
individual diferences in anxiety correlates with changes in sensitivity to the body / interoceptive sensitivity
klumppa et al
INSULA AND ACC
hyp:
patients with generalised social anxiety disorder would
have enhanced insula reactivity and less insula-(pre)frontal connectivity when processing
threat faces compared to healthy controls
klumppa et al
INSULA AND ACC
method:
fmri: modified Emotional Face Matching Task (EFMT)
- 3 faces
- two bottom and one top
- one of two at bottom matched emotion of top
(fear vs happy faces)
generalised social anxiety disorder
RT to match
klumppa et al
INSULA AND ACC
RESULTS
patients:
- greater activation to fear>happy in ant. insula > controls
-less right ant.insula-dACC connectivity > controls
Right insula is a proposed interface between bodily arousal and its representation as a subjective feeling (Critchley et al., 2004) - link between ant.insula and dACC helps give rise to an awareness of mind-body interactions - interact when processing threat.
hyp- ant.insula exaggerated reactivity to threat due to
deficiencies in cog control over threat, threat appraisal, and/or regulation of threat signals - functions of dACC
