The normalized signal change at the driving ssVEP frequency was then evaluated by means of an omnibus mixed-model anova, with CS Type (CS+,CS–), Phase (Baseline, Conditioning, Extinction) and Stimulus (Luminance, Chromatic) as the within-subject factors and Tagging Frequency (14 Hz, 15 Hz) as the between-subjects factor. Rating data obtained after each experimental phase were submitted to the same statistical model. A CS Type × Phase interaction was deemed necessary for inferring

a conditioning effect and served as a prerequisite for conducting follow-up anovas. An alpha level of 0.05 (two-tailed) was employed for all analyses. Ratings of hedonic valence and emotional arousal collected after the end of each experimental phase demonstrated clear evidence of fear conditioning. Across reversal

Raf inhibitor frequencies and stimulus types, participants rated the CS+ as more unpleasant (i.e., Afatinib solubility dmso lower in hedonic valence) than the CS– solely during the acquisition phase [F1,25 = 35.90, P < 0.001,  = 0.59], resulting in a CS Type x Phase interaction [F2,50 = 19.32, P < 0.001,  = 0.44] in the overall model. No differences were observed during the habituation and extinction phases (all F < 2.52, all P > 0.12). In terms of emotional arousal (intensity), main effects of experimental Phase [F(2,48]  = 12.60, P < 0.001,  = 0.34] and of CS Type [F(1,24] = 32.08, P < 0.001,  = 0.57] were qualified by an interaction of CS Type × Phase [F(2,48] = 18.68, P < 0.001,  = 0.44]. This interaction reflected Glutamate dehydrogenase the absence of CS-related arousal effects during habituation (all F < 2.42, all P > 0.13) and extinction (al F < 2.71, all P > 0.10), and greater rated emotional arousal specifically in response to the CS+ during acquisition [F1,25 = 58.50, P < 0.001,  = 0.71]. Importantly, behavioral ratings were not affected by stimulus type.

Both stimuli evoked strong and reliable ssVEPs at the reversal frequency, with a pronounced posterior topographical maximum (see Fig. 3). Focusing on local ssVEP amplitude over a group of occipital sensors, we observed a significant three-way CS Type × Phase × Stimulus [F2,48 = 6.39, P = 0.003,  = 0.21] interaction. As there were no significant effects involving Tagging Frequency (all P > 0.103), this factor was dropped in subsequent analyses. As suggested in Fig. 4, the crucial CS Type × Phase interaction [F2,50 = 9.80, P < 0.001,  = 0.28] was observed for low-spatial-frequency luminance stimuli only (chromatic stimuli, CS Type × Phase F < 1, P > 0.77). We next conducted a series of follow-up anova contrasts on ssVEPs evoked by the low-spatial-frequency luminance Gabor patches in each experimental phase. These analyses confirmed the visual impression conveyed by Fig. 5; a CS+ specific enhancement at posterior sensors was observed during the conditioning [F1,25 = 6.25, P = 0.019,  = 0.