@article{HerzogAndreattaSchneideretal.2021,
  author    = {Herzog, Katharina and Andreatta, Marta and Schneider, Kristina and Schiele, Miriam A. and Domschke, Katharina and Romanos, Marcel and Deckert, J{\"u}rgen and Pauli, Paul},
  title     = {Reducing Generalization of Conditioned Fear: Beneficial Impact of Fear Relevance and Feedback in Discrimination Training},
  series = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2021.665711},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-239970},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Anxiety patients over-generalize fear, possibly because of an incapacity to discriminate threat and safety signals. Discrimination trainings are promising approaches for reducing such fear over-generalization. Here we investigated the efficacy of a fear-relevant vs. a fear-irrelevant discrimination training on fear generalization and whether the effects are increased with feedback during training. Eighty participants underwent two fear acquisition blocks, during which one face (conditioned stimulus, CS+), but not another face (CS-), was associated with a female scream (unconditioned stimulus, US). During two generalization blocks, both CSs plus four morphs (generalization stimuli, GS1-GS4) were presented. Between these generalization blocks, half of the participants underwent a fear-relevant discrimination training (discrimination between CS+ and the other faces) with or without feedback and the other half a fear-irrelevant discrimination training (discrimination between the width of lines) with or without feedback. US expectancy, arousal, valence ratings, and skin conductance responses (SCR) indicated successful fear acquisition. Importantly, fear-relevant vs. fear-irrelevant discrimination trainings and feedback vs. no feedback reduced generalization as reflected in US expectancy ratings independently from one another. No effects of training condition were found for arousal and valence ratings or SCR. In summary, this is a first indication that fear-relevant discrimination training and feedback can improve the discrimination between threat and safety signals in healthy individuals, at least for learning-related evaluations, but not evaluations of valence or (physiological) arousal.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{PittigHeinigGoerigketal.2021,
  author    = {Pittig, Andre and Heinig, Ingmar and Goerigk, Stephan and Thiel, Freya and Hummel, Katrin and Scholl, Lucie and Deckert, J{\"u}rgen and Pauli, Paul and Domschke, Katharina and Lueken, Ulrike and Fydrich, Thomas and Fehm, Lydia and Plag, Jens and Str{\"o}hle, Andreas and Kircher, Tilo and Straube, Benjamin and Rief, Winfried and Koelkebeck, Katja and Arolt, Volker and Dannlowski, Udo and Margraf, J{\"u}rgen and Totzeck, Christina and Schneider, Silvia and Neudeck, Peter and Craske, Michelle G. and Hollandt, Maike and Richter, Jan and Hamm, Alfons and Wittchen, Hans-Ulrich},
  title     = {Efficacy of temporally intensified exposure for anxiety disorders: A multicenter randomized clinical trial},
  series = {Depression and Anxiety},
  volume    = {38},
  journal   = {Depression and Anxiety},
  number    = {11},
  doi       = {10.1002/da.23204},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-257331},
  pages     = {1169-1181},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background The need to optimize exposure treatments for anxiety disorders may be addressed by temporally intensified exposure sessions. Effects on symptom reduction and public health benefits should be examined across different anxiety disorders with comorbid conditions. Methods This multicenter randomized controlled trial compared two variants of prediction error-based exposure therapy (PeEx) in various anxiety disorders (both 12 sessions + 2 booster sessions, 100 min/session): temporally intensified exposure (PeEx-I) with exposure sessions condensed to 2 weeks (n = 358) and standard nonintensified exposure (PeEx-S) with weekly exposure sessions (n = 368). Primary outcomes were anxiety symptoms (pre, post, and 6-months follow-up). Secondary outcomes were global severity (across sessions), quality of life, disability days, and comorbid depression. Results Both treatments resulted in substantial improvements at post (PeEx-I: d\(_{within}\) = 1.50, PeEx-S: d\(_{within}\) = 1.78) and follow-up (PeEx-I: d\(_{within}\) = 2.34; PeEx-S: d\(_{within}\) = 2.03). Both groups showed formally equivalent symptom reduction at post and follow-up. However, time until response during treatment was 32\% shorter in PeEx-I (median = 68 days) than PeEx-S (108 days; TR\(_{PeEx-I}\)-I = 0.68). Interestingly, drop-out rates were lower during intensified exposure. PeEx-I was also superior in reducing disability days and improving quality of life at follow-up without increasing relapse. Conclusions Both treatment variants focusing on the transdiagnostic exposure-based violation of threat beliefs were effective in reducing symptom severity and disability in severe anxiety disorders. Temporally intensified exposure resulted in faster treatment response with substantial public health benefits and lower drop-out during the exposure phase, without higher relapse. Clinicians can expect better or at least comparable outcomes when delivering exposure in a temporally intensified manner.},
  language  = {en}
}