(Virtual) welcome to Vincent

What a strange time to welcome our new full-time intern Vincent (middle, center) to the lab in the middle of the COVID-19 shut-down. The internship will be a bit different from what we initially planned but we will give our best! Happy to have you joining the lab and hoping to meet you in person during your stay (end of August)! Virtual welcome!

New work out on procedural considerations in human reinstatement

Experimental paradigms used to study reinstatement of fear in humans are characterized by procedural heterogeneity. Reinstatement protocols involve unexpected (re)presentations of the unconditioned stimulus (USs)after fear extinction training. Here, we address the number ofreinstatement USs administered as a potential boundary condition that may explain divergent findings in the field. A sample of 171 participants is exposed to a fear acquisition training, immediate
extinction training, and reinstatement test experiment. Three groups
differing in the number of reinstatement US are employed: one (n = 57)
or four (n = 55) in experimental groups and zero (n = 59) in the control
group. We adopt Bayesian statistical approaches beyond classical null
hypothesis significance testing (NHST) to qualify evidence for or
against this potential methodological boundary condition in
reinstatement-induced return of fear. Startle potentiation to the
reinstatement administration context was increased for the RI–USone
compared to the RI–USzero group, supporting the role of context
conditioning in reinstatement. This effect was weaker in the RI–USfour
group. This, however, did not transfer to responding to conditioned
stimuli during the return of fear-test: no evidence for an effect of the
number of reinstatement USs (zero, one, four) was observed in
behavioral or physiological measures. In sum, our results speak against the number of reinstatement USs as a potential boundary condition in experimentally induced return of fear in humans. This may challenge what we think we know about the reinstatement phenomenon in humans and call for critical reconsideration of paradigms as well as mechanisms that may underlie some reinstatement effects in the literature.

Welcome (back) Janne

We are very happy to welcome Janne Nold as a full time research intern to the group. Janne worked as a student assistant in the lab 2 yrs ago when doing her BA degree in Psychology in Hamburg. She is now a master student at the university of Oldenburg. Welcome back Janne.


Pround to announce that we have finished data collection for 500 participants for our multicentric study in the context of our Collaborative Research Center on Fear, Anxiety and Anxiety Disorders. So did the Münster and Würzburg site! Credit to Karoline for data collection and Hannes for the pic.

new research intern

Welcome to our new research intern Sabrina Illius who joins us from the University of Trier. We are happy to have Sabrina work with us for a full time internship until February 2020!

New preprint: How to not get lost in the garden of forking paths: Lessons learned from human fear conditioning research regarding exclusion criteria

This topic has been on my mind for quite some years now. We, as a team of authors from different labs across Europe, present a systmatic literature search, forking path analyses with respect to exclusion criteria for ‘non-learner’ and ‘non-responder’. We also provide illustrative case examples on the potential danger of performance-based participant exclusion as well as clear recommendations on how to not get lost in the garden of forking path regarding exclusion criteria. Thanks to everyone who contributed!