Skip to main content
. 2023 Oct 18;44(18):6418–6428. doi: 10.1002/hbm.26518

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

The threat‐safety reversal task paradigm and subjective ratings. (a) The experiment comprised three phases: habituation (top row), conditioning (middle row) and reversal (bottom row). Blue and yellow spheres were used as the conditioned stimuli (CS). The unconditioned stimulus (US, orange lightning bolt) was 50 ms of white noise. During the conditioning phase the US co‐terminated with one of the CS, forming a CS+ (threatening stimuli). Nothing was paired with the other CS, forming a CS− (safe stimuli). During the reversal phase, unknown to the participant, the US‐CS pairing was switched (forming CS+new and CS−new). (b) Subjective ratings corresponding to each task phase for valence (top) and arousal (bottom). Safety reversal (CS−new − CS+) and threat reversal (CS+new − CS−) contrasts are highlighted in green and orange, respectively. While the expected main effects of safety and threat reversal were observed, there were no differences between the healthy control (HC, grey) and OCD cohorts (blue).