Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T02:52:18.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Exploration Heuristics During Anxiety – an Online Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Georgios Tertikas*
Affiliation:
Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, United Kingdom Sussex Neuroscience, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom
Magda Dubois
Affiliation:
Max Planck University College London Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing Research, London, United Kingdom Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College of London, London, United Kingdom
Tobias U. Hauser
Affiliation:
Max Planck University College London Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing Research, London, United Kingdom Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College of London, London, United Kingdom
Daniel K. Campbell-Meiklejohn
Affiliation:
Sussex Neuroscience, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom
Hugo D. Critchley
Affiliation:
Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, United Kingdom Sussex Neuroscience, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

Every day, we may choose something new randomly (random exploration) or select something new with no prior information (de-novo exploration). The link between exploration and anxiety has only been studied using trait-like anxiety questionnaires, but an experimental manipulation of anxiety could have different results. Individual differences (e.g., sex or novelty-seeking (NS) trait) also impact specific exploration strategies. Thus, we examined if anxiety manipulation in a task would influence different exploration strategies while also looking at sex, NS bias and trait anxiety.

Methods

117 healthy subjects (58 female) completed online questionnaires (novelty-seeking dimension of the Cloninger's Tridimentional Personality Questionnaire (TPQ-NS), trait anxiety questionnaire (STAI)) and performed the Maggie's farm task. This task allows to review different exploration strategies, promoting exploration via the number of available choices (horizon). The threat of aversive stimuli (loud noises appearing at random times) was used to emulate anxiety, in a between-subject design. Comparing computational models of exploration, the best-fitting model (evaluated by Bayesian Information Criterion) in our data was a Thompson model with an ε-greedy element (random exploration) and a novelty bonus η (de-novo exploration). We used repeated-measures ANOVA, comparing the effect of horizon on the ε and η parameters with the anxiety category as a between-subject factor. We used partial Pearson's correlations of ε and η derivatives (mean and standardised-difference (SD) across horizon) with STAI and TPQ-NS measures correcting for participant's reported stress levels and anxiety category. Partial correlations analyses were repeated after splitting the data by sex.

Results

There was no between-subject effect of anxiety category on the horizon of either ε (F(1,1) = 0.253, p = 0.6) or η (F(1,1) = 0.305, p = 0.58). SD of ε was negatively correlated with TPQ-NS (r = −0.184, p = 0.050) but no other partial correlation was significant. When splitting by sex, SD of ε was negatively correlated with the STAI score (r = −0.341, p = 0.01) in females and the TPQ-NS score in males (r = −0.275, p = 0.038). The mean η positively correlated with the STAI score (r = 0.318, p = 0.016) in males.

Conclusion

While the experimentally modulated anxiety did not affect the exploration parameters, individual differences in NS and trait anxiety are suggested to affect random and de-novo exploration in a sex-dependent manner. Imaging research, or research into anxiety population could help further solidify these results in the future.

Type
Research
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.