Source Paper
The impact of anxiety upon cognition: perspectives from human threat of shock studies
Oliver J. Robinson, Katherine Vytal, Brian R. Cornwell, Christian Grillon
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience • 2013
Source Paper
Oliver J. Robinson, Katherine Vytal, Brian R. Cornwell, Christian Grillon
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience • 2013
Anxiety disorders constitute a sizeable worldwide health burden with profound social and economic consequences. The symptoms are wide-ranging; from hyperarousal to difficulties with concentrating. This latter effect falls under the broad category of altered cognitive performance which is the focus of this review. Specifically, we examine the interaction between anxiety and cognition focusing on the translational threat of unpredictable shock paradigm; a method previously used to characterize emotional responses and defensive mechanisms that is now emerging as valuable tool for examining the interaction between anxiety and cognition. In particular, we compare the impact of threat of shock on cognition in humans to that of pathological anxiety disorders. We highlight that both threat of shock and anxiety disorders promote mechanisms associated with harm avoidance across multiple levels of cognition (from perception to attention to learning and executive function)-a "hot" cognitive function which can be both adaptive and maladaptive depending upon the circumstances. This mechanism comes at a cost to other functions such as working memory, but leaves some functions, such as planning, unperturbed. We also highlight a number of cognitive effects that differ across anxiety disorders and threat of shock. These discrepant effects are largely seen in "cold" cognitive functions involving control mechanisms and may reveal boundaries between adaptive (e.g., response to threat) and maladaptive (e.g., pathological) anxiety. We conclude by raising a number of unresolved questions regarding the role of anxiety in cognition that may provide fruitful avenues for future research.
Objective: To examine the impact of induced state anxiety on cognitive performance using a translational threat of unpredictable electrical shock paradigm, where subjects anticipate infrequent shocks while performing cognitive tasks, alternating with safe no-shock conditions to directly manipulate state anxiety within subjects.
This is a Threat of Shock Paradigm protocol using human as the model organism. The procedure involves 9 procedural steps, 4 equipment items, 1 materials. Extracted from a 2013 paper published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience.
Model and subjects
human • not specified • not specified • not specified • not specified • not specified
Study window
Estimated timing pending
Core workflow
Subject instruction and threat condition setup • Threat condition cognitive task administration • Safe condition cognitive task administration
Primary readouts
Key equipment and reagents
Verified items
0
Direct vendor links
0
Use this page as an execution guide, then fall back to the source paper whenever you need exact exclusions, dosing details, or assay-specific caveats.
Confirm first
Use the page like this
Start here. The step list is optimized for running the experiment, with direct vendor links available inline when you need to source a cited item.
Subjects are informed that they are at risk of receiving infrequent electrical shocks during the experimental session
Note: This establishes the threat condition for state anxiety induction
“subjects are told that they are at risk of infrequent electrical shocks”
Subjects perform cognitive tasks while anticipating the infrequent electrical shocks
Note: This is the threat/anxiety condition where state anxiety is elevated
“Whilst anticipating the shocks subjects can be tested upon a cognitive task”
Subjects perform the same or similar cognitive tasks during a safe no-shock condition
Note: This serves as the control condition with no threat of shock
“This can alternate with a safe no shock condition to directly manipulate state anxiety within subjects”
Threat and safe conditions are alternated throughout the experimental session
Note: Within-subjects design allows each subject to serve as their own control
“This can alternate with a safe no shock condition to directly manipulate state anxiety within subjects”
Administer tasks assessing early sensory processing and detection of environmental stimuli such as auditory tones or discrete visual cues
Note: Tasks utilize affectively neutral stimuli and fall into cold cognitive functions category
“we define sensory-perceptual processes as the early processing and detection of environmental stimuli (e.g., auditory tones or discrete visual cues)”
Assess filtering mechanisms that constrain afferent signaling, potentially using ocular motor responses to sound or startle attenuation by cue (PPI)
Note: Measures preattentive filtering of sensory information
“Sensory gating refers to filtering mechanisms that constrain afferent signaling to allow for elaborative processing of certain stimuli”
Assess detection of negative information and emotional perception tasks
Note: Falls under hot cognitive processing category
“we also examine (3) emotional perception which falls under the category of hot cognitive processing”
Record event-related potentials during passive oddball procedures where rare stimuli are embedded in uniform stimulus sequences
Note: Measures mismatch negativity (MMN) occurring between 150-250 ms post-stimulus, reflecting preattentive change detection
“The MMN is elicited by passive oddball procedures in which relatively rare stimuli are embedded in an otherwise uniform sequence of stimuli”
Record brainstem responses (wave V) to simple auditory stimulation to assess early afferent pathway processing
Note: Wave V responses occur approximately 10 ms in the afferent pathway at the level of the inferior colliculus
“ERP studies have shown that brainstem (wave V) responses to simple auditory stimulation are increased in patients with panic disorder”
This section explains what the experiment is doing, which readouts matter, what the data artifacts usually look like, and how the analysis should flow from raw capture to reported result.
To examine the impact of induced state anxiety on cognitive performance using a translational threat of unpredictable electrical shock paradigm, where subjects anticipate infrequent shocks while performing cognitive tasks, alternating with safe no-shock conditions to directly manipulate state anxiety within subjects.
Objective
To examine the impact of induced state anxiety on cognitive performance using a translational threat of unpredictable electrical shock paradigm, where subjects anticipate infrequent shocks while performing cognitive tasks, alternating with safe no-shock conditions to directly manipulate state anxiety within subjects.
Subjects
From paperhuman • not specified • not specified • not specified • not specified
Sample count
From papernot specified
Cohort notes
From paperHealthy volunteers used in threat of shock studies
Subject instruction and threat condition setup (not specified)
Threat condition cognitive task administration (not specified)
Safe condition cognitive task administration (not specified)
Condition alternation (not specified)
State anxiety level during threat vs. safe conditions
From papernot specified in text
Artifact type
Endpoint measurements summarized by group or timepoint
Comparison focus
Compare endpoint magnitude between groups, timepoints, or both
Cognitive task performance accuracy and reaction time
From papernot specified in text
Artifact type
Endpoint measurements summarized by group or timepoint
Comparison focus
Compare endpoint magnitude between groups, timepoints, or both
Mismatch negativity (MMN) amplitude and latency
From papernot specified in text
Artifact type
Endpoint measurements summarized by group or timepoint
Comparison focus
Compare endpoint magnitude between groups, timepoints, or both
Brainstem wave V amplitude
From papernot specified in text
Artifact type
Endpoint measurements summarized by group or timepoint
Comparison focus
Compare endpoint magnitude between groups, timepoints, or both
State anxiety level during threat vs. safe conditions
From paperRaw artifact
Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
Processed artifact
Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
Final reported form
Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
Cognitive task performance accuracy and reaction time
From paperRaw artifact
Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
Processed artifact
Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
Final reported form
Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
Mismatch negativity (MMN) amplitude and latency
From paperRaw artifact
Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
Processed artifact
Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
Final reported form
Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
Brainstem wave V amplitude
From paperRaw artifact
Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
Processed artifact
Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
Final reported form
Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
Acquisition
Collect raw experimental outputs with enough metadata to preserve sample identity, condition, and timing.
Preprocessing / cleaning
not specified in text
Scoring or quantification
Quantify the primary readouts for this experiment: State anxiety level during threat vs. safe conditions; Cognitive task performance accuracy and reaction time; Mismatch negativity (MMN) amplitude and latency; Brainstem wave V amplitude.
Statistical comparison
Statistical method not yet structured for this page.
Reporting output
Report representative outputs alongside summary comparisons for State anxiety level during threat vs. safe conditions, Cognitive task performance accuracy and reaction time, Mismatch negativity (MMN) amplitude and latency, Brainstem wave V amplitude.
Source links and direct wording from the methods section for validation and deeper review.
Citation
Oliver J. Robinson et al. (2013). The impact of anxiety upon cognition: perspectives from human threat of shock studies. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Subject instruction and threat condition setup • Protocol step
“subjects are told that they are at risk of infrequent electrical shocks”
Threat condition cognitive task administration • Protocol step
“Whilst anticipating the shocks subjects can be tested upon a cognitive task”
Safe condition cognitive task administration • Protocol step
“This can alternate with a safe no shock condition to directly manipulate state anxiety within subjects”
Sensory-perceptual processing assessment • Protocol step
“we define sensory-perceptual processes as the early processing and detection of environmental stimuli (e.g., auditory tones or discrete visual cues)”
Direct vendor pages are linked from the protocol above. This section stays focused on the full comparison view and the prep checklist.
Gather these items before starting the experiment. Check off items as you prepare.
not specified • not specified • not specified • not specified
not specified • not specified • not specified • not specified
not specified • not specified • not specified • not specified
not specified • not specified • not specified • not specified
not specified • not specified • not specified • not specified
not specified • not specified
Use this section as the page quality checkpoint. It keeps section navigation, evidence access, readiness, and verification meaning in one place.
Current status surfaces were computed from experiment data updated Feb 28, 2026.
Source access
Jump back into the original paper or the methods evidence section when you need exact wording, exclusions, or method-specific caveats.
This protocol has structured steps plus evidence quotes, and is ready for canonical sync.
Steps
9
Evidence Quotes
8
Protocol Items
5
Linked Products
0
Canonical Sync
Pending
What this means
The completeness score reflects how much structured protocol data is present: steps, methods evidence, listed materials, linked products, and paper provenance.
Computed from the current experiment record updated Feb 28, 2026.
Canonical Sync shows whether a ConductGraph-backed protocol is available for this experiment route right now. It is a sync-status signal, not a claim that every downstream vendor link or step detail is perfect.
Steps
9
Evidence
8
Specific Products
0/0
Canonical Sync
Pending
What this score means
The verification score reflects evidence coverage, subject detail, paper provenance, step depth, and whether linked products resolve to specific item pages instead of generic searches.
Computed from the current experiment record updated Feb 28, 2026.
A page can have structured steps and still need review when evidence is thin, product links are generic, or canonical protocol coverage is still pending.
What still needs work
Music Experience Rating Scale
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis
Semi-structured Interviews on Music Experience in Psilocybin Therapy
Nicotine Patch Challenge Study