Trial Outcomes & Findings for Effects of Arousal and Stress in Anxiety (NCT NCT00026559)
NCT ID: NCT00026559
Last Updated: 2024-01-09
Results Overview
Subjects participated in go/no go (GNG) task condition during periods of threat of shocks and periods of safety when no shock could be administered. During the GNG stimuli were presented on a monitor. In the GNG task, participants were asked to respond to frequent 'go' stimuli ('=') by pressing the '2' on the keypad of a computer keyboard and to withhold their response to infrequent 'nogo' stimuli ('O'). Stimuli were randomly distributed. A correct go hit was a response recorded during these 2000 millisecond (ms) to a go trial. Similarly, a correct nogo omission was a no response during the same period to a nogo trial. Performance was determined for each condition (threat, safe) and trial type (go, nogo) by dividing the number of correct response by the total number of each trial type.
COMPLETED
NA
1418 participants
250 ms at a rate of one every 2000 ms
2024-01-09
Participant Flow
All sub-studies were conducted at different time points so subjects had the option to participate in multiple sub-studies
Participant milestones
| Measure |
Healthy Volunteers
Healthy volunteers participated in one or more sub-studies:
Sub-study A: Working memory and anxiety / Participant performed a working memory task in two conditions, under threat of shock and in safety and asked to remember verbal and nonverbal stimuli from the current stimulus on the screen (N-back task).
Sub-study C: Effect of anxiety on sustained attention to response task (SART) / participant was presented with stimuli and either initiated a response (i.e. "go") or inhibited their response (i.e. "stop") based on what stimuli were presented.
Sub-study D: Effect of anxiety on Stroop task/ In the classic Stroop test, the name of a color is printed in a color that conflicts or does not conflict with the word. In the emotional Stroop, the words emotional words. The participant's task was to name the color of the word.
Pilot studies / (1) Shocks were delivered via electrodes located on the forearm or fingers while participant performed a working memory or vigilance task or (2) Subject performed cognitive tasks during alternating safe and threat periods
|
|---|---|
|
Healthy Volunteers
STARTED
|
1418
|
|
Healthy Volunteers
COMPLETED
|
1418
|
|
Healthy Volunteers
NOT COMPLETED
|
0
|
|
Working Memory Task
STARTED
|
115
|
|
Working Memory Task
COMPLETED
|
115
|
|
Working Memory Task
NOT COMPLETED
|
0
|
|
Sustained Attention to Response Task
STARTED
|
61
|
|
Sustained Attention to Response Task
COMPLETED
|
61
|
|
Sustained Attention to Response Task
NOT COMPLETED
|
0
|
|
Stroop Task
STARTED
|
69
|
|
Stroop Task
COMPLETED
|
69
|
|
Stroop Task
NOT COMPLETED
|
0
|
|
Pilot Studies
STARTED
|
1210
|
|
Pilot Studies
COMPLETED
|
1210
|
|
Pilot Studies
NOT COMPLETED
|
0
|
Reasons for withdrawal
Withdrawal data not reported
Baseline Characteristics
Effects of Arousal and Stress in Anxiety
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
Sub-study A: Working Memory Task
n=115 Participants
Participant performed a working memory task in two conditions, under threat of shock and in safety and asked to remember verbal and nonverbal stimuli from the current stimulus on the screen (N-back task)
|
Sub-study C: Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART)
n=54 Participants
Participant was presented with stimuli and either initiated a response (i.e. "go") or inhibited their response (i.e. "stop") based on what stimuli were presented
|
Sub-study D: Stroop Task
n=39 Participants
In the classic Stroop test, the name of a color is printed in a color that conflicts or does not conflict with the word. In the emotional Stroop, the words emotional words. The participant's task was to name the color of the word
|
Pilot Studies
n=1210 Participants
(1) Shocks were delivered via electrodes located on the forearm or fingers while participant performed a working memory or vigilance task or (2) Subject performed cognitive tasks during alternating safe and threat periods
|
Total
n=1418 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Age, Categorical
Healthy volunteers · <=18 years
|
0 Participants
n=39 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=41 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=35 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=31 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=146 Participants
|
|
Age, Categorical
Healthy volunteers · Between 18 and 65 years
|
115 Participants
n=39 Participants
|
54 Participants
n=41 Participants
|
39 Participants
n=35 Participants
|
1210 Participants
n=31 Participants
|
1418 Participants
n=146 Participants
|
|
Age, Categorical
Healthy volunteers · >=65 years
|
0 Participants
n=39 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=41 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=35 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=31 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=146 Participants
|
|
Sex/Gender, Customized
Healthy volunteers · Female
|
68 Participants
n=39 Participants
|
38 Participants
n=41 Participants
|
26 Participants
n=35 Participants
|
655 Participants
n=31 Participants
|
787 Participants
n=146 Participants
|
|
Sex/Gender, Customized
Healthy volunteers · Male
|
47 Participants
n=39 Participants
|
16 Participants
n=41 Participants
|
13 Participants
n=35 Participants
|
554 Participants
n=31 Participants
|
630 Participants
n=146 Participants
|
|
Sex/Gender, Customized
Healthy volunteers · Unknown
|
0 Participants
n=39 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=41 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=35 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=31 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=146 Participants
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Healthy volunteers · Hispanic or Latino
|
12 Participants
n=39 Participants
|
4 Participants
n=41 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=35 Participants
|
89 Participants
n=31 Participants
|
106 Participants
n=146 Participants
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Healthy volunteers · Not Hispanic or Latino
|
101 Participants
n=39 Participants
|
48 Participants
n=41 Participants
|
38 Participants
n=35 Participants
|
1103 Participants
n=31 Participants
|
1290 Participants
n=146 Participants
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Healthy volunteers · Unknown or Not Reported
|
2 Participants
n=39 Participants
|
2 Participants
n=41 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=35 Participants
|
18 Participants
n=31 Participants
|
22 Participants
n=146 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Healthy volunteers · American Indian or Alaska Native
|
0 Participants
n=39 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=41 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=35 Participants
|
7 Participants
n=31 Participants
|
7 Participants
n=146 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Healthy volunteers · Asian
|
22 Participants
n=39 Participants
|
7 Participants
n=41 Participants
|
3 Participants
n=35 Participants
|
169 Participants
n=31 Participants
|
201 Participants
n=146 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Healthy volunteers · Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
|
0 Participants
n=39 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=41 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=35 Participants
|
3 Participants
n=31 Participants
|
3 Participants
n=146 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Healthy volunteers · Black or African American
|
26 Participants
n=39 Participants
|
20 Participants
n=41 Participants
|
13 Participants
n=35 Participants
|
280 Participants
n=31 Participants
|
339 Participants
n=146 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Healthy volunteers · White
|
58 Participants
n=39 Participants
|
23 Participants
n=41 Participants
|
21 Participants
n=35 Participants
|
662 Participants
n=31 Participants
|
764 Participants
n=146 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Healthy volunteers · More than one race
|
6 Participants
n=39 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=41 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=35 Participants
|
26 Participants
n=31 Participants
|
34 Participants
n=146 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Healthy volunteers · Unknown or Not Reported
|
3 Participants
n=39 Participants
|
3 Participants
n=41 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=35 Participants
|
63 Participants
n=31 Participants
|
70 Participants
n=146 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 250 ms at a rate of one every 2000 msPopulation: Analysis included a subset of 40 health volunteers who participated in a study to examine the effect of anxiety induced by the threat of shock on Go/NoGo performance. Four subjects were excluded in the final analysis.
Subjects participated in go/no go (GNG) task condition during periods of threat of shocks and periods of safety when no shock could be administered. During the GNG stimuli were presented on a monitor. In the GNG task, participants were asked to respond to frequent 'go' stimuli ('=') by pressing the '2' on the keypad of a computer keyboard and to withhold their response to infrequent 'nogo' stimuli ('O'). Stimuli were randomly distributed. A correct go hit was a response recorded during these 2000 millisecond (ms) to a go trial. Similarly, a correct nogo omission was a no response during the same period to a nogo trial. Performance was determined for each condition (threat, safe) and trial type (go, nogo) by dividing the number of correct response by the total number of each trial type.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Healthy Volunteers
n=36 Participants
Healthy subjects will perform a variety of cognitive tasks during alternating safe and threat periods. Occasional startle stimuli will be delivered to assess anxiety.
|
|---|---|
|
Go Correct Hits Followed by Button Press
Safe Condition
|
90.9 Percentage of correct responses
Interval 88.6 to 93.1
|
|
Go Correct Hits Followed by Button Press
Threat Condition
|
91.6 Percentage of correct responses
Interval 89.2 to 94.0
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 250 ms at a rate of one every 2000 msPopulation: Analysis included a subset of 40 health volunteers who participated in a study to examine the effect of anxiety induced by the threat of shock on Go-NoGo performance. Four subjects were excluded in the final analysis
Subjects participated in go/no go (GNG) task condition during periods of threat of shocks and periods of safety when no shock could be administered. During the GNG stimuli were presented on a monitor. In the GNG task, participants were asked to respond to frequent 'go' stimuli ('=') by pressing the '2' on the keypad of a computer keyboard and to withhold their response to infrequent 'nogo' stimuli ('O'). Stimuli were randomly distributed. A correct go hit was a response recorded during these 2000 millisecond (ms) to a go trial. Similarly, a correct nogo omission was a no response during the same period to a nogo trial. Performance was determined for each condition (threat, safe) and trial type (go, nogo) by dividing the number of correct response by the total number of each trial type.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Healthy Volunteers
n=36 Participants
Healthy subjects will perform a variety of cognitive tasks during alternating safe and threat periods. Occasional startle stimuli will be delivered to assess anxiety.
|
|---|---|
|
Nogo Trials Followed by no Button Press
Safe Condition
|
74.4 Percentage of correct responses
Interval 70.8 to 78.6
|
|
Nogo Trials Followed by no Button Press
Threat Condition
|
81.2 Percentage of correct responses
Interval 76.7 to 85.7
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 2000 ms during trialPopulation: Analysis included a subset of 40 health volunteers who participated in a study to examine the effect of anxiety induced by the threat of shock on Go-NoGo performance. Four subjects were excluded in the final analysis.
Correct go responses were go trials followed by button press. Mean reaction time (RT) was calculated for correct-go to evaluate speed-accuracy trade-off.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Healthy Volunteers
n=36 Participants
Healthy subjects will perform a variety of cognitive tasks during alternating safe and threat periods. Occasional startle stimuli will be delivered to assess anxiety.
|
|---|---|
|
Correct-go Reaction Time (RT)
Safe Condition
|
358.5 millisecond
Interval 339.1 to 377.9
|
|
Correct-go Reaction Time (RT)
Threat Condition
|
349.3 millisecond
Interval 331.0 to 367.5
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 20-100 ms window following the onset of the startle stimulusPopulation: Analysis included a subset of 40 health volunteers who participated in a study to examine the effect of anxiety induced by the threat of shock on Go-NoGo performance. Four subjects were excluded in the final analysis.
The startle reflex was elicited with a 103-decibel (dB) white noise (40-ms duration) delivered via headphone. The eyeblink component of the startle reflex was recorded binaurally with two AgCl electrodes placed under the left eye. The peak startle/eyeblink reflex magnitude was determined in the 20-100 ms timeframe. The shock was administered either on the left wrist or on the left middle and ring fingers, depending on where the desired intensity was reached. Startle stimuli were delivered between two go trials and go trials that followed a startle stimulus were not included in the analysis. A shock was delivered in two of the four threat blocks in each sequence, just prior to the last go trial, which was not included in the analysis (for a total of 4 shocks). Shock could be administered only in the threat condition and never in the safe condition. The results were analyzed using a Condition (safe, threat) x Task (task, no task) repeated ANOVA.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Healthy Volunteers
n=36 Participants
Healthy subjects will perform a variety of cognitive tasks during alternating safe and threat periods. Occasional startle stimuli will be delivered to assess anxiety.
|
|---|---|
|
Response to Startle Reflex
No Task - Safe condition
|
44.2 milliseconds
Interval 41.9 to 46.4
|
|
Response to Startle Reflex
No Task - Threat condition
|
57.5 milliseconds
Interval 55.0 to 59.5
|
|
Response to Startle Reflex
Task - Safe condition
|
42.4 milliseconds
Interval 41.0 to 43.9
|
|
Response to Startle Reflex
Task - Threat condition
|
53 milliseconds
Interval 50.4 to 55.5
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Every 100 sec repeated 8 timesPopulation: Analysis included a subset of 40 health volunteers who participated in a study to examine the effect of anxiety induced by the threat of shock on Go-NoGo performance. Four subjects were excluded in the final analysis.
Subjects retrospectively rated their level of anxiety using a scale of 1-10 where 1 = "not at all anxious" and 10 = "extremely anxious" at the end of each block of a sequence for a total of eight blocks. A block was defined as a combination of a condition (safe or threat) and a task (task or no task). The results were analyzed using a Condition (safe, threat) x Task (task, no task) repeated ANOVA.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Healthy Volunteers
n=36 Participants
Healthy subjects will perform a variety of cognitive tasks during alternating safe and threat periods. Occasional startle stimuli will be delivered to assess anxiety.
|
|---|---|
|
Subjective Measures of Level of Anxiety
No Task - Safe Condition
|
1.6 Units on a scale
Interval 1.2 to 1.8
|
|
Subjective Measures of Level of Anxiety
No Task - Threat Condition
|
3.4 Units on a scale
Interval 2.7 to 4.2
|
|
Subjective Measures of Level of Anxiety
Task - Safe Condition
|
1.6 Units on a scale
Interval 1.4 to 1.9
|
|
Subjective Measures of Level of Anxiety
Task - Threat Condition
|
3.6 Units on a scale
Interval 2.9 to 4.3
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 1-3 weeks before start of studyPopulation: Analysis included a subset of 60 health volunteers who participated in a study to examine the effect of anxiety induced by threat of shock on the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART).
Subjects completed the Attention Control Scale (ACS) prior to start of the study. The ACS is a 20-item self-report scale that measures attentional focusing (9 items) and attentional shifting (11 items) rated on a four-point likert scale from "1 - almost never" to "4 - always" with total score range of 20 to 80. Higher score on ACS reflect better ability to direct and maintain attention.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Healthy Volunteers
n=60 Participants
Healthy subjects will perform a variety of cognitive tasks during alternating safe and threat periods. Occasional startle stimuli will be delivered to assess anxiety.
|
|---|---|
|
Measure of Attention Control
|
59.9 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.9
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 1-3 weeks before start of studyPopulation: Analysis included a subset of 60 health volunteers who participated in a study to examine the effect of anxiety induced by threat of shock on the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART).
The level of anxiety was assessed using the Trait Anxiety Inventory questionnaire. The Trait Anxiety Scale (T-Anxiety) evaluates relatively stable aspects of "anxiety proneness", including general states of calmness, confidence, and security. The Trait Anxiety Scale has 20 items. All items are rated on a 4-point scale: 1 = almost never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, and 4 = almost always.. The scale has a minimum score of 20 and a maximum score of 80. Higher score indicates greater anxiety. Trait Anxiety score was measured prior to start of the study.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Healthy Volunteers
n=60 Participants
Healthy subjects will perform a variety of cognitive tasks during alternating safe and threat periods. Occasional startle stimuli will be delivered to assess anxiety.
|
|---|---|
|
Measure of Level of Anxiety
|
28 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.8
|
Adverse Events
Sub-study A: Working Memory Task
Sub-study C: Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART)
Sub-study D: Stroop Task
Pilot Studies
Serious adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Other adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Additional Information
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
- Publication restrictions are in place