Affective Computer-Generated Stimulus Exposure: Psychophysiological Support for Increased Elicitation of Negative Emotions in High and Low Fear Subjects

  • Christopher G. Courtney
  • Michael E. Dawson
  • Anne M. Schell
  • Thomas D. Parsons
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5638)

Abstract

The present study examined physiological measures of affect when viewing images from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS), computer-generated still images, and computer-generated videos of feared and non-feared stimuli. Twenty low fear (LF) and twelve high fear (HF) individuals viewed static and moving images of spiders and snakes. In both LF and HF subjects, computer-generated video images elicited more intense affective responses than the IAPS images and the computer-generated stills. Computer-generated still images were as effective in eliciting fear responses as the IAPS. These results suggest that computer-generated images can be as or more effective as the IAPS in eliciting fear. Regardless of modality, HF subjects showed stronger physiological responses to their specifically feared stimulus (snake or spider) than to a non-feared stimulus.

Keywords

Psychophysiology Fear EMG skin conductance VR startle 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lang, P.J., Bradley, M.M., Cuthbert, B.N.: International Affective Picture System (IAPS): Instruction Manual and Affective Ratings. Technical report A-6, The Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hamm, A.O., Schupp, H.T., Weike, A.I.: Motivational organization of emotions: Autonomic changes, cortical responses, and reflex modulation. In: Davidson, R.J., Scherer, K.R., Goldsmith, H.H. (eds.) Handbook of Affective Science, pp. 596–618. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Witmer, B.G., Singer, M.J.: Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire. Presence 7, 225–240 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Emmelkamp, P.M.G., Krijn, M., Hulbosch, A.M., de Vries, S., Schuemie, M.J., van der Mast, C.A.P.G.: Virtual Reality Treatment Versus Exposure In Vivo: A Comparative Evaluation in Acrophobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy 40, 509–516 (2002)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Parsons, T.D., Rizzo, A.A.: Affective Outcomes of Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy for Anxiety and Specific Phobias: A Meta-analysis. J. of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 39, 250–261 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jang, D.P., Kim, I.Y., Nam, S.W., Wiederhold, B.K., Wiederhold, M.D., Kim, S.I.: Analysis of Physiological Response to Two Virtual Environments: Driving and Flying Simulation. CyberPsychology and Behavior 5, 11–18 (2002)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Detenber, B.H., Simons, R.F., Bennett, G.G.: Roll ‘em!: The Effects of Picture Motion on Emotional Responses. J. of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 42, 113–127 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Franconeri, S.L., Simons, D.J.: Moving and Looming Stimuli Capture Attention. Perception and Psychophysics 7, 999–1010 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Öhman, A., Soares, J.J.F.: “Unconscious Anxiety”: Phobic Responses to Masked Stimuli. J. of Abnormal Psychology 103, 231–240 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schwarz, N.: Self-reports: How the Questions Shape the Answers. American Psychologist 54, 93–105 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lang, P.J.: The Emotion Probe: Studies of Motivation and Attention. American Psychologist 50, 372–385 (1995)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vrana, S.R., Spence, E.L., Lang, P.J.: The startle Probe Response: A New Measure of Emotion? Journal of Abnormal Psychology 97, 487–491 (1988)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bradley, M.M., Cuthbert, B.N., Lang, P.J.: Affect and the Startle Reflex. In: Dawson, M.E., Schell, A.M., Bohmelt, A.H. (eds.) Startle Modification: Implications for Neuroscience, Cognitive Science, and Clinical Science, pp. 157–183. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klorman, R., Weerts, T.C., Hastings, J.E., Melamed, B.G., Lang, P.J.: Psychometric Descriptions of Some Specific-fear Questionnaires. Behavior Therapy 5, 401–409 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holm, S.: A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 6, 65–70 (1979)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dillon, C., Keogh, E., Freeman, J.: “It’s Been Emotional”: Affect, Physiology, and Presence. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual International Workshop on Presence, Porto, Portugal (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dawson, M.E., Schell, A.M., Filion, D.L.: The electrodermal system. In: Cacioppo, J.T., Tassinary, L.G., Berston, G. (eds.) Handbook of Psychophysiology, pp. 159–181. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher G. Courtney
    • 1
    • 3
  • Michael E. Dawson
    • 1
  • Anne M. Schell
    • 2
  • Thomas D. Parsons
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyOccidental CollegeUSA
  3. 3.Institute for Creative TechnologiesUniversity of Southern CaliforniaUSA

Personalised recommendations