PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

Back

327

Title *

Modulatory effects of instructions on extinction efficacy in appetitive and aversive learning: A registered reportuse asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Lea Busch, Katja Wiech, Matthias Gamer, Balint Kincses, Tamas Spisak, Katharina Schmidt, Ulrike BingelPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2023

Picture

Abstract *

<p>In the context of pain, extinction learning has been shown to be slower or incomplete for aversive compared to appetitive cues (i.e., cues signaling pain exacerbation and pain relief, respectively), potentially due to their higher biological relevance. In a therapeutic context, this reluctant extinction that has been discussed as indicative of a ‘better safe than sorry strategy’ could potentially be reduced by making patients aware of the change in contingency. Using a classical conditioning paradigm, we will test whether slower or incomplete extinction learning from aversive than appetitive cues can be prevented when participants are explicitly informed about contingency changes using verbal instructions. Geometric figures will serve as conditioned stimuli, and individually calibrated temperature changes applied to capsaicin-pretreated skin, inducing pain exacerbation or pain relief, respectively, from tonic pain levels will serve as unconditioned stimuli. Behavioral measures (expectancy and valence ratings) and physiological measures (pupillometry, skin conductance responses) will be collected as outcome measures. Task-independent neural activity (resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging) will be assessed prior to the behavioral paradigm. We expect stronger acquisition and extinction learning with instruction and will assess whether this effect is more pronounced for appetitive stimuli. Moreover, we intend to identify neural markers that are associated with the modulatory effects of expectations on appetitive and aversive learning.</p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

Instructed extinction; expectation; pain conditioning; eye tracking; rsfMRI

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Medical Sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe [john@doe.com]

Submission date

2022-10-15 19:45:48

Recommender

Chris Chambers

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a report

Announcements

MANAGING BOARD

MEMBER OF

INDEXED BY