Neural mechanisms underlying the control of emotion Part 1: Behavioural dataset

Methods. Participants took part in a standard fear conditioning paradigm where images (of faces and houses, in Experiment 1; of faces, in experiments 2-3) acted as conditioned stimuli. In the first, conditioning part of the experiment the images were paired with the threat of electric shock (CS+) or with safety (no shock: CS-). In the second, counter-conditioning part of the experiment participants were given instructions about the likelihood of monetary reward each CS+ predicted. Participants then completed a similar fear conditioning paradigm to that previously presented, but with rewards gained as instructed.

Data: Participants provided ratings of their pain perception; how valuable the monetary reward was to them; to what degree they expected to receive pain or reward with each CS stimulus; how much they liked, or were threatened, by each CS stimulus. We collected their reaction time and accuracy on an incidental CS classification task, and their skin conductance responses.

Sample: All participants were healthy adult volunteers, screened for neurological and psychiatric conditions, who were not taking centrally-acting medications and had normal or corrected-to normal vision.
Experiment 1. Twenty nine participants took part in the experiment. 3 participants were excluded because of failures to correctly report the stimulus contingencies. A further 2 participants did not complete the paradigm because of equipment failure. This left 24 participants (14 male, mean age = 25.5) for which data was successfully collected.
Experiment 2. Forty two participants took part in the experiment, randomly allocatedto the extinction and counterconditioning paradigms. 2 participants were excluded due to failure to correctly report the stimulus contingencies. A further 2 participants were excluded due habituating to the pain stimulus. This left 19 participants who took part in the extinction paradigm (6 males, average age 20.2) and 19 participants who took part in the counterconditioning paradigm (4 males, average age 20.2) for whom data was analysed.
Experiment 3: 30 participants took part in the experiment. 5 participants were excluded due to failure to correctly report the stimulus contingencies. A further 3 participants who habituated to the pain stimulus were also excluded. This left 22 participants (5 male, average age=19.4) whose data was analysed.