ArticleComputational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.)2026
Computational Modelling Reveals Slower Safety Learning and Threat Extinction are Associated With Higher Anxiety Severity in Remote Fear Conditioning.
Article in Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anxiety disorders are chronic, pervasive, and debilitating; characterised by a persistent or exaggerated response to distal or abstract threats. Impaired threat discrimination (distinguishing safe from threatening stimuli) and impaired threat extinction (learning a once threatening stimulus is now safe), are known risk factors in the development and persistence of anxiety disorders. These effects can be experimentally elicited through fear conditioning. First, repeated trials of paired aversive and neutral stimuli are delivered during a fear acquisition phase, followed by repeated trials with no aversive stimuli in a fear extinction phase. The effects are typically measured through comparison of end-phase data points, or simple descriptive or statistical models. Computational modelling, by contrast, can offer a hypothesis-driven, trial-by-trial mechanistic account of fear conditioning. This unmasks within subject task variance by estimating the rate of threat learning, safety learning, and threat extinction, examining individual differences in the cognitive mechanisms behind anxiety. A normative sample (n = 145) underwent a differential fear conditioning task on a bespoke smartphone app, in addition to completing an anxiety severity measure (GAD-7). Computational models fitted to task data estimated learning rates. Whilst the threat learning rate showed no association, the threat extinction and safety learning rates showed small negative associations with anxiety severity (ρ = -0.22, p = 0.01 & ρ = -0.21, p = 0.01 respectively). These findings are in keeping with prior studies using traditional analytical approaches, and indicate that anxious individuals are not quicker to develop fear of a stimulus, but take more time than their non-anxious counterparts to learn that a stimulus is safe. This study strengthens the evidence for impairments in fear extinction in those with anxiety, and the importance of learning rates as an index of anxiety severity, a previously hidden cognitive mechanism underlying anxiety persistence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.