Baas Johanna M P, Grillon Christian, Böcker Koen B E, Brack Anouk A, Morgan Charles A, Kenemans J Leon, Verbaten Marinus N
Mood and Anxiety Disorder Program, NIMH, NIH, 15k North Drive MSC 2670, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2002 May;161(3):233-47. doi: 10.1007/s00213-002-1011-8. Epub 2002 Mar 20.
Pre-clinical and clinical investigations have provided a great deal of evidence that the fear-potentiated startle paradigm represents a valid model for the objective assessment of emotional states of anxiety and fear.
The four studies presented in this report sought to further validate the "threat of shock" paradigm as a human analogue to fear-potentiated startle in rats, by examining the effect of benzodiazepine administration on both baseline and fear-potentiated startle.
Three studies, conducted at Utrecht University, evaluated the effects of oxazepam and of diazepam on baseline and fear-potentiated startle, whereas a fourth study, conducted at Yale University, evaluated the effect of diazepam on baseline, contextual and cue-specific fear-potentiated startle. The threat of shock paradigm consisted of verbal instruction about two visual cues (the threat cue predicted the possible administration of electric shock, the other predicted a safe period), followed by a series of presentations of these cues. During these conditions, acoustic startle stimuli were presented in order to elicit startle responses. The magnitude of the startle response was used to index the degree of fear or alarm experienced during the periods of threat and safety. The fourth study examined the effect of IV administration of diazepam in a similar threat of shock paradigm except that there were two additional context manipulations: electrode placement and darkness.
None of the drug manipulations affected specific threat-cue potentiation of startle. However, reductions in baseline startle were observed. Further, startle potentiation by darkness was inhibited by diazepam.
At least one type of fear-potentiated startle, i.e. potentiation by a cue-specific fear manipulation, is not susceptible to benzodiazepine treatment. In contrast, effects of manipulations more akin to anxiety (darkness, context) appear sensitive to benzodiazepines. Human experimental models differentiating between these cue specific and contextual responses are needed to shed more light on differences in the anatomy and pharmacology of anxiety disorders.
临床前和临床研究提供了大量证据,表明恐惧增强惊吓范式是客观评估焦虑和恐惧情绪状态的有效模型。
本报告中的四项研究试图通过研究苯二氮䓬给药对基线惊吓和恐惧增强惊吓的影响,进一步验证“电击威胁”范式作为大鼠恐惧增强惊吓的人类类似物。
乌得勒支大学进行的三项研究评估了奥沙西泮和地西泮对基线惊吓和恐惧增强惊吓的影响,而耶鲁大学进行的第四项研究评估了地西泮对基线、情境和线索特异性恐惧增强惊吓的影响。电击威胁范式包括关于两个视觉线索的口头指示(威胁线索预测可能给予电击,另一个预测安全期),随后是这些线索的一系列呈现。在这些条件下,呈现听觉惊吓刺激以引发惊吓反应。惊吓反应的幅度用于指示在威胁和安全期间所体验到的恐惧或警觉程度。第四项研究在类似的电击威胁范式中研究了静脉注射地西泮的效果,只是增加了两种情境操作:电极放置和黑暗环境。
药物处理均未影响惊吓的特定威胁线索增强。然而,观察到基线惊吓有所降低。此外,地西泮抑制了黑暗环境引起的惊吓增强。
至少一种类型的恐惧增强惊吓,即由线索特异性恐惧操作引起的增强,对苯二氮䓬治疗不敏感。相比之下,更类似于焦虑的操作(黑暗环境、情境)的影响似乎对苯二氮䓬敏感。需要能够区分这些线索特异性和情境反应的人类实验模型,以更清楚地了解焦虑症在解剖学和药理学上的差异。