Table 1.
Mean scores of pain threshold in the two experimental groups.
Table 2.
Results of the paired t-tests for the comparison of the preacquisition stimulus ratings of CS and CS.NEW for both groups.
Fig 1.
Experimental design of acquisition and test phase for both groups of experiment 1 and 2.
Shown are the CS (blue square) during acquisition, associated with safety in one group (strict temporal separation of aversive and neutral stimulus: NS // US → CS-) and with threat in the other (temporal association of the stimuli: NS + US → CS+). The following test phase was identical for both groups and included the CS as well as a new visual cue (yellow circle, NEW) simultaneously presented with heat pain stimuli.
Fig 2.
Mean pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings.
Mean (+SEM) (A) Pain Intensity Ratings and (B) Pain Unpleasantness Ratings of the Test Phase for both groups, separately for safety / threat (CS) and new trials (NEW), respectively.
Fig 3.
Mean pain intensity ratings and pain unpleasantness ratings, averaged across cues, separately for both groups.
Mean (+SEM) (A) Pain Intensity Ratings and (B) Pain Unpleasantness Ratings, averaged across cues, separately for both groups. Following the fourth trial, the thermode was relocated and stimulation continued on a different patch. * p < .05.
Fig 4.
Time course of heart rate and of the change in skin conductance.
(A)Time course of Heart Rate (1s time bins, baseline-corrected 5 s before cue onset), averaged across both CS types, separately for both experimental groups, during the Test Phase and (B) Mean time course (1-s bins) of the change in Skin Conductance (baseline-corrected 5 s before cue onset) during the Test Phase for the two cue types.
Fig 5.
Cue ratings during the test phase.
Mean (+ SEM) ratings for threat, safety, valence, arousal, and shock expectancy are depicted separately for both groups and cues, * p < .05.
Table 3.
Mean scores in pain threshold in the two experimental groups.
Table 4.
Results of the paired t-tests for the comparison of the preacquisition stimulus ratings of CS and CS.NEW for both groups.
Fig 6.
Pain intensity rating and pain unpleasantness ratings for both groups.
Mean (+SEM) (A) Pain Intensity Rating and (B) Pain Unpleasantness Ratings for both groups, separately for safety / threat (CS) and new trials (NEW), respectively.
Fig 7.
Pain intensity ratings and pain unpleasantness ratings averaged across cues.
Mean (+SEM) (A) Pain Intensity Ratings and (B) Pain Unpleasantness Ratings, averaged across cues, separately for both groups, * p < .05. Asterisks indicate significant group difference at the specific trial.
Fig 8.
Time course of heart rate and of the change in skin conductance.
Mean time course (1-s bins) of (A) Heart Rate (baseline-corrected 5 s before cue onset) for the averaged CS, separately for both experimental groups, during the Test Phase & (B) mean time course (1-s bins) of the change in Skin Conductance (baseline-corrected 5 s before cue onset) for the averaged CS+/- and CS.NEW during the Test Phase for the two experimental groups.
Fig 9.
Affective cue ratings during the test phase.
Mean (+ SEM) ratings for threat, safety, valence, arousal, and shock expectancy are depicted separately for both groups and cues, * p < .05.