Sign in
NeuroscienceScientific Reports
Peer-reviewed journal article

Defensive freezing and its relation to approach-avoidance decision-making under threat

Felix H. KlaasseniD, Leslie K. HeldiD, Bernd FigneriD, Jill X. O’ReillyiD, Floris KlumpersiD, Lycia D. de VoogdiD, Karin Roelofs AiD

Abstract

Successful responding to acutely threatening situations requires adequate approach-avoidance decisions. However, it is unclear how threat-induced states-like freezing-related bradycardia-impact the weighing of the potential outcomes of such value-based decisions. Insight into the underlying computations is essential, not only to improve our models of decision-making but also to improve interventions for maladaptive decisions, for instance in anxiety patients and first-responders who frequently have to make decisions under acute threat. Forty-two participants made passive and active approach-avoidance decisions under threat-of-shock when confronted with mixed outcome-prospects (i.e., varying money and shock amounts). Choice behavior was best predicted by a model including individual action-tendencies and bradycardia, beyond the subjective value of the outcome. Moreover, threat-related bradycardia interacted with subjective value, depending on the action-context (i.e., passive vs. active). Specifically, in action-contexts incongruent with participants intrinsic action-tendencies, strong freezers showed diminished effects of subjective value on choice. These findings illustrate the relevance of testing approach-avoidance decisions in relatively ecologically valid conditions of acute and primarily reinforced threat. These mechanistic insights into approach-avoidance conflict-resolution may inspire biofeedback-related techniques to optimize decision-making under threat. Critically, the findings demonstrate the relevance of incorporating internal psychophysiological states and external action-contexts into models of approach-avoidance decision-making.

PDFDOI

02 /Specification & Classification

Click any tag to browse matching papers
Citations
49
FWCI
4.21
Field percentile
top 5%

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.