Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Experimental design.

(A) Fear conditioning procedure. Participants were fear-conditioned to a visual conditioned stimulus (CSShock) through multiple parings with an aversive unconditioned stimulus (Shock). A control stimulus (CSTouch) was paired with a neutral event (Touch). Reinforcement rate is 50%. (B) Decision-making task. Participants made a series of choices between a safe and risky option in the context of either a CSShock or CSTouch. Reinforcement rate is 30%. Note. Red and green lightning depicts the presentation of the Shock and Touch, respectively.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Mean pleasantness ratings for the fear-conditioned (CSShock) and neutral (CSTouch) stimulus as a function of experimental phase (i.e., baseline, after fear conditioning, and after the decision-making task).

Error bars depict standard error of the mean. a5 = very pleasant; -5 = very unpleasant.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Mean pupil dilation response (t-score: Peak change from baseline) for the fear-conditioned (CSShock) and neutral (CSTouch) stimulus across fear conditioning (i.e., early, mid, to late acquisition) and CS cue presentation during the decision-making task (i.e., early vs. late).

Error bars depict standard error of the mean. Note. CS = Conditioned Stimulus.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Mean reaction time (in ms) for CSShock- and CSTouch-trials as a function of reminder (i.e., proceeding a trial in which a Shock, a Touch, or no electro stimulation was given).

Error bars depict standard error of the mean. Note.*p <.05, **p <.005.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Mean expected value (in Euros) of the chosen option for CSShock- and CSTouch-trials as a function of reminder (i.e., proceeding a trial in which a Shock, a Touch, or no electro stimulation was given).

Error bars depict standard error of the mean. Note. *p <.05.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Estimates for the adapted PT-model.

Plot (A) depicts estimates for the alpha (α) coefficient after a Touch reminder. Plot (B) depicts subjective valuation after a Touch reminder. Note. PT = Prospect Theory; CS = Conditioned Stimulus. *p <.05, **p <.005.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 1.

Brain activation related to CS cue presentation (Touched_CSTouch vs. Shocked_CSShock).

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 7.

Linking the PT model valuation parameter α to brain activation.

(A) vmPFC activation in Relief contrast. A Touched-CSTouch > Shocked-CSShock contrast revealed activation within the vmPFC. We applied these masks to obtain a vmPFC ROI. (B) Correlation between vmPFC activity and α. Subsequent correlation analyses revealed that condition-specific activation in the vmPFC is positively related to condition-specific individual α-estimates. Note. CS = Conditioned Stimulus; vmPFC = ventro medial PreFrontal Cortex; PT = Prospect Theory.

More »

Fig 7 Expand