Threats Influence Fear-Potentiated Startle (FPS)

Two articles are looked at in this paper. One article is about how different cognitive loads and amount of attention to threats influence fear-potentiated startle. Another article about how social contact promotes health and well-being. A description of the studies conducted will be explained, along with the results of the study.

The purpose of this article was to examine how fear-potentiated startle (FPS) is affected by different levels of trait anxiety, focus of attention, and cognitive load. Fear potentiated startle is the reflexive reaction to stimuli, which, in this study, are threat cues. Researchers hypothesized that FPS would be reduced with a high cognitive load compared to low cognitive loads. They also hypothesized that different
FPS was significantly lower with the HL/AS condition followed by the LL/AS and TF condition, respectively. There was no significant effect of trait anxiety in the TF and HL/AS condition. Overall, there was no main effect or significant interaction with any of the conditions. In both high and low anxiety traits, FPS for each condition was about the
The independent variables in this experiment was the three different types of hand holding conditions. There was holding hands with the spouse, holding hands with a stranger, and then not holding hands with anyone. The dependent variable in this experiment was how the wives rated their feelings of unpleasantness (valence) and agitation (arousal) on a Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) scale. The SAM scale is a 5-point scale that has pictures of a person, ranging from experiencing little unpleasantness to experiencing a lot of unpleasantness. Another dependent variable was the amount of neural activity in the brain there was. This study lasted for two weeks. In those two weeks, participants had two visits that were separated by one week. In the first visit, the couples were asked to complete questionnaires about the quality of their marriage and their personalities. The couples also experienced a mock scan during the first week to familiarize themselves with how the equipment worked. They experienced a mock fMRI scan and practiced pushing a button box that would be used in the experiment. Although electric shocks are a part of the study, participants did not experience these shocks until the second visit. One week later after completing questionnaires and familiarizing themselves with the equipment, the second visit occurred. In this visit, the wives completed a fMRI safety