Figure 1
The schematic representation of the instructed threat paradigm used in this study. (A) The two visual stimuli (symbols) which were used in the instructed threat paradigm and their corresponding explanation: when the circle was presented in screen (CS+), there was a 30% probability to be paired with a threat stimulus (electric shock; US), whereas the square had no stimulus pairing (CS+). (B) Example of the temporal scale of the stimuli presentation: each symbol was presented on the computer screen for 5 s followed by a fixation cross with an inter-trial interval (ITI) between 5 and 6 s (Experiment 1). A neuronavigated single-pulse TMS was applied to the right dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC) after either 80  or 1000 ms (Experiment 2).

The schematic representation of the instructed threat paradigm used in this study. (A) The two visual stimuli (symbols) which were used in the instructed threat paradigm and their corresponding explanation: when the circle was presented in screen (CS+), there was a 30% probability to be paired with a threat stimulus (electric shock; US), whereas the square had no stimulus pairing (CS+). (B) Example of the temporal scale of the stimuli presentation: each symbol was presented on the computer screen for 5 s followed by a fixation cross with an inter-trial interval (ITI) between 5 and 6 s (Experiment 1). A neuronavigated single-pulse TMS was applied to the right dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC) after either 80  or 1000 ms (Experiment 2).

Close
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Close

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

View Article Abstract & Purchase Options

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Close