From Recognition to Response

J.Michelle

Intervention development and research proposal | October 10, 2026

Abstract

People who understand an unwanted emotional response may still struggle to act differently when it occurs. This paper proposes a practice framework and research program for improving the transition from recognition to action. The NIRVA Method organizes candidate processes through NOTICE, INTERRUPT & IDENTIFY, REGULATE, VALIDATE, and ALIGN. Each step is linked to an observable target, while practice connects relevant cues to feasible actions and feedback. Neural reconditioning describes the hypothesized learning emphasis: alternatives become more accessible through repeated experience, with retention and transfer assessed separately. Human studies of reappraisal, contextual learning, and expectancy updating inform this rationale without validating the combined method. A specific hypothesis tests whether processing credible differences between expected and observed outcomes accelerates retained responding beyond explanation and intention alone. Faster behavioral learning and faster neural change require different evidence. The proposed program begins with co-design and feasibility work, then separates a package-efficacy trial from component studies of outcome processing and context variation. The primary efficacy outcome is independently rated, goal-consistent behavior in an untrained situation at delayed follow-up. Emotional intensity, physiology, effort, and consequences are complementary outcomes. The framework preserves assertiveness and protective action; it does not define success as calmness or agreement. No intervention results are reported.

Keywords: emotion regulation; neural reconditioning; NIRVA Method; repeated practice; expectancy updating; transfer

The intervention target

A person who can explain an unwanted response may still need help noticing its earliest cues, recognizing its current expression, or carrying out a different action. An intervention should establish which of these difficulties is present before adding more explanation. Teaching the same concept repeatedly is unlikely to answer a research question about transfer if performance is assessed only in the teaching context.

The target proposed here is an increase in the availability and execution of context-appropriate action. This includes the ability to clarify a misunderstanding, tolerate uncertainty, ask for support, assert a boundary, or leave an unsafe interaction. Reduced emotional intensity can be helpful, but it is not the definition of success. A person may act effectively while still experiencing anger or physiological arousal.

This paper is an intervention-development proposal that can be read independently. The related conceptual manuscript Knowing the Pattern, Repeating the Response addresses identification and measurement of the discrepancy; it does not supply independent evidence for this intervention. Its starting distinctions are general pattern knowledge, current-state recognition, recognition of how the state may affect interpretation, and implementation of an alternative. Transfer concerns performance in a different context; retention concerns performance after a delay. Both should be measured. These distinctions are provisional and must be tested rather than treated as validated dimensions.

Evidence selection and boundaries

A targeted narrative search conducted on October 10, 2026 examined human research on emotion-regulation implementation, stress, contextual learning, and practice delivered in daily life. Work from 2024–2026 was prioritized alongside selected foundational studies. The search included neural responses to training, prediction error, and expectancy updating. This was not a systematic review, and the resulting proposal does not represent a clinical guideline. No new trial or observational dataset is reported.

Gross’s (2015) extended process model distinguishes identifying a need for regulation, choosing a strategy, and implementing it. That separation motivates component-specific instruction and assessment. Luo et al. (2025) further examined implementation choices after a reappraisal had been generated. Their results caution against treating the availability of an alternative interpretation as proof that it will be pursued. These are foundations for intervention design, not evidence for the NIRVA package.

Li et al. (2025) compared implementation-intention reappraisal with a control condition in a picture-viewing study (22 participants per group). Effects were assessed through seven days; arousal effects extended to an untrained picture category, and late positive potential amplitudes differed between groups. These results motivate delayed and transfer assessments. They do not establish change in interpersonal behavior or anatomical pathways.

Zainal et al. (2024) randomized 191 adults meeting a social-anxiety screening threshold to a self-guided mindfulness app or self-monitoring. The reported midintervention changes differed across emotion-regulation and self-compassion dimensions. Some favored mindfulness, whereas awareness findings favored monitoring. Screening-defined eligibility and dimension-specific findings limit broad claims about clinical populations or a unitary regulatory capacity.

Stress effects also vary. Wessa et al. (2024) observed a time-dependent impairment in reappraisal, whereas Hamza et al. (2024) found no stress effect in a different experiment. A protocol should therefore accommodate fluctuating performance without presuming that reasoning becomes unavailable whenever distress rises. Practice schedules, strategy demands, and assessment timing are variables to investigate.

Principles for a proposed practice framework

Training begins with a specific situation and an action the participant wants to change. Broad labels such as “being reactive” are insufficient for selecting a practice target. A useful description identifies the cue, the interpretation, the urge, the action, and the consequence. These elements form a working hypothesis that the participant can revise; they are not an externally imposed explanation of the person’s history.

The alternative response must be feasible in the actual setting. Pausing a message is different from pausing an emergency task, and requesting clarification from a trusted colleague is different from negotiating with someone who threatens retaliation. Practice should include evaluating whether to regulate internally, solve a practical problem, seek assistance, or leave. The purpose is to expand available action while preserving protection and agency.

Instruction should be brief enough to use during an event and sufficiently detailed to support later reflection. A person need not reconstruct their entire learning history before changing the next action. More extensive interpretation can occur afterward, when it is useful and tolerable. This proposed separation between brief in-event practice and later review requires empirical evaluation.

Operationalizing the NIRVA Method

The NIRVA Method is specified as NOTICE → INTERRUPT & IDENTIFY → REGULATE → VALIDATE → ALIGN. The following descriptions are proposed research operationalizations of those steps. They do not establish a fixed biological sequence, and participants may revisit steps as information changes.

NOTICE

The participant identifies a small set of personally relevant cues, such as an urge to reply immediately, a change in speaking pace, or repeatedly rehearsing a rebuttal. Cues should be observable or reportable and should not be interpreted as proof of danger or dysregulation. An initial exercise distinguishes cues detected during the event from those recognized only afterward.

The proposed outcome is earlier, appropriately calibrated recognition, not constant bodily monitoring. Researchers should record false alarms as well as missed opportunities. A participant who labels every disagreement as an episode requiring regulation has not necessarily become more accurate. If internal attention increases distress, the protocol should permit external cues or suspension of the exercise.

INTERRUPT & IDENTIFY

The participant practices a brief, safe interruption of the next unwanted action. Examples include keeping a message unsent while identifying its purpose or requesting a short pause in a nonurgent conversation. The interruption is paired with a concrete identification question: What am I assuming, what am I about to do, and what information do I actually have?

Identification does not require deciding that the interpretation is false. The target is making the inference explicit enough to examine. A participant may conclude that the concern is well supported and choose a more effective way to address it. Assessment separates whether an interruption occurred from whether the interpretation was identified; an interruption without either follow-through or later return may instead become avoidance.

REGULATE

The participant selects a tolerable action intended to make the next useful response more accessible. Candidate actions include reducing nonessential stimulation, shifting attention briefly, changing the immediate situation, seeking support, or using a previously helpful regulation strategy. No single tactic is prescribed as universally effective, and the research protocol should document exactly which tactics are used.

The criterion is improved access to action, rather than complete removal of distress. If a strategy worsens the experience or consumes more effort than it saves, the participant changes or stops it. This step should not postpone urgent protective action or necessary medical care. Neither a physiological threshold nor an unvalidated wearable classification should be required before someone is permitted to set a boundary.

VALIDATE

The participant acknowledges the experience, relevant need, or understandable protective purpose of the response. For example, wanting clarity or fair treatment may be reasonable even when an immediate action would undermine that aim. Validation does not certify an inference about another person, endorse a harmful act, or require agreement with an external evaluator.

The proposed role of this step is to reduce additional conflict about having the reaction and support an honest appraisal of what is needed. That role is a hypothesis specific to the proposed sequence. A component study should test whether including validation improves outcomes beyond the other steps and whether effects differ by participant or context.

ALIGN

The participant chooses and carries out a response linked to a previously articulated value or goal. A useful goal is specific enough to guide behavior: obtain the missing information, preserve safety, communicate a limit, or return to a task without sending an unwanted insult. The action may be firm, emotionally expressive, or protective.

An action is evaluated by its fit with the goal and the available evidence, not by whether another person approves of it. Researchers should record both the response and its consequences. An apparently calm interaction can still involve coercion or avoidance, while a difficult conversation can represent successful agency. Follow-up asks whether the concern was addressed and whether another action is needed.

Practicing the transition rather than rehearsing the explanation

Practice connects a recognizable cue to one feasible action. An illustrative nonurgent plan is: “If I feel compelled to send another message before receiving a reply, I will identify the information I need and decide whether one clear request serves that purpose.” The cue and response can be revised when they prove unreliable or impractical. Repetition means retrieving and enacting an alternative, not merely repeating an explanation. The following learning cycle specifies preparation, action, feedback, and adjustment; transfer and retention must then be assessed beyond that cycle.

Neural reconditioning as a central intervention hypothesis

Neural reconditioning names the proposed learning emphasis of this framework: repeated experiences that improve the availability of useful cue interpretations and actions over time. The term is descriptive rather than a claim that NIRVA is an established neurological treatment. Its practical purpose is to move beyond being able to explain a pattern toward being able to respond differently when the pattern is evoked. Substantial attention to this process does not imply that greater emotional intensity, longer sessions, or more repetitions are necessarily better.

Human research provides a bounded rationale. Repeated reappraisal has been associated with attenuated later amygdala responses to practiced images (Denny et al., 2015). Longitudinal reappraisal training has also been associated with changes in whole-brain negative-affect pattern expression in a clinical sample, without matching self-report improvements in the relevant comparisons (Denny et al., 2024). These studies support measuring persistence and multiple outcome types; they do not supply an effective dose for NIRVA. Context-sensitive fear and extinction representations in intracranial research further motivate testing whether learning remains accessible when circumstances change (Pacheco-Estefan et al., 2026).

The proposed causal hypothesis is explicit: compared with matched explanation alone, practice that repeatedly links discriminable cues to feasible actions and outcome feedback will improve independent, goal-consistent responding. A second hypothesis is that varied practice will improve transfer beyond equal practice restricted to one setting. A third is that any reduction in effort should coexist with appropriate discrimination between situations. All three require testing; the intervention should not promise automatic calm or permanent elimination of defensive responses.

A proposed learning cycle within NIRVA

Preparation defines a specific target and preserves the person’s goal. Instead of “stop being defensive,” a target might be “ask what the feedback refers to before sending a rebuttal when the message is ambiguous.” The protocol records the cue, anticipated meaning, usual action, immediate outcome, and later cost. It also identifies circumstances in which a different response, such as urgent protective action, is appropriate. This mapping supplies candidate learning targets without assuming that every concern is inaccurate.

During NOTICE, practice emphasizes discrimination between the first usable signal and later escalation. During INTERRUPT & IDENTIFY, the participant briefly changes the next action and makes the active interpretation explicit. REGULATE supports enough capacity to continue the chosen response; VALIDATE acknowledges the experience or need; ALIGN culminates in an observable action. The practice episode therefore includes doing something relevant to the original problem, rather than ending after successful recitation of the sequence.

The participant then compares an anticipated outcome with what actually occurred. A prediction might be “asking for detail will make me look incompetent.” The observed outcome might support, weaken, or leave that prediction unresolved. Feedback should preserve that uncertainty instead of imposing a reassuring account. The proposed learning opportunity lies in obtaining usable new information while enacting an alternative. A neutral or disappointing response from another person does not automatically make the participant’s action unsuccessful; the action may still have clarified the situation or protected a boundary.

Rehearsal begins with situations the participant can engage with voluntarily and meaningfully. Demand can vary as feasibility is established, rather than being increased according to a universal schedule. Practice can include changes in wording, people, setting, and communication medium. It should also include cases in which the original concern is justified, so that the learned response is accurate discrimination and flexible action. This is a proposed research procedure, not an instruction to manufacture distress or rehearse dangerous encounters.

Repeated enactment and review form the training cycle. Researchers record opportunities, attempts, successful transitions, effort, and reasons a response was unavailable. Repeatedly discussing the pattern without attempting an action is a different activity and should be coded separately. Corrective feedback can simplify an overcomplicated response, refine an unreliable cue, or replace a tactic that did not help. Quality and fit are candidate moderators of practice effects; counting repetitions alone would miss them.

Testing whether a changed outcome speeds learning

The component hypothesis is that opportunities to encounter and process credible evidence of a different outcome may accelerate retained adaptive responding beyond understanding and intention alone. Expectancy updating is a proposed mediator, measured before the later behavioral outcome; participants should not be classified retrospectively as treatment successes merely because they report updating. The critical contrast is between knowing an explanation, encountering relevant new evidence, and learning from that evidence. Expectancy violation and expectancy updating should be measured separately, as clinical findings indicate they are not interchangeable (Pittig et al., 2023). Acceleration of behavioral learning should be established before claims about faster neural adaptation are considered.

Within a proposed practice episode, the participant specifies a prediction before acting, records what occurred, and then states what they now expect in a comparable future situation. An illustrative prediction is “If I ask for clarification, I will be ridiculed.” A respectful answer could contradict that prediction. If ridicule occurs but the participant can end the exchange and obtain support, that may instead challenge a separate prediction of helplessness. These are different learning targets and should not be combined into a single positive-outcome score. The participant also records whether the evidence felt credible and what features limit its relevance elsewhere.

This comparison can be incorporated into review after ALIGN, without changing the named NIRVA sequence. The facilitator asks what was predicted, what actually happened, what remains uncertain, and what expectation is justified now. The purpose is accurate updating rather than compulsory optimism. There is no requirement to become calm before learning can be recorded. A later unprompted opportunity tests whether the revised expectation and alternative action remain available; immediate agreement with a facilitator is insufficient.

A study could compare matched education and intention formation, practice with general review, and the same practice with explicit prediction–outcome comparison. Matching practice opportunities between the latter groups helps test the contribution of evidence processing. Repeated measurements would estimate change per opportunity and time to a prespecified behavioral criterion, followed by retention and transfer tests. A separate, ethically acceptable simulation could vary relevant outcome information while holding action opportunities constant. That manipulation would address evidence itself more directly than a trial comparing review instructions. Neither design should expose participants to real interpersonal harm.

The protocol should preregister whether expectancy updating precedes subsequent action change and measure plausible alternatives, including perceived support, self-efficacy, and demand effects. Greater final improvement is not automatically faster learning; a rate claim requires repeated observations. Neural acceleration would additionally require longitudinal neural outcomes with interpretable timing and an appropriate comparator. Shorter session duration in a specific anxiety task (Johnco et al., 2025) is not itself evidence of faster retained learning or neural change, and a PTSD experiment found no corresponding symptom advantage from explicitly emphasizing expectancy violation (Kooistra et al., 2025).

The proposed mechanism would be weakened if credible mismatches do not update expectations, if updating fails to predict later behavior, or if the explicit-comparison condition does not improve learning rate, retention, or transfer over matched practice. A necessary-outcome claim would require stronger evidence still. The present proposal therefore treats changed-outcome evidence as a candidate accelerator whose benefit may depend on relevance, credibility, interpretation, and context, rather than as a required perfect ending or a guarantee of recovery.

Retention, reduced effort, and return of older responses

The framework should distinguish feeling better during a session from retaining a response after the session. An initial study could assess participants after training and at prespecified delayed intervals, with some probes occurring without reminders. The exact spacing and amount of training should be justified through feasibility work and subsequently compared, rather than presented as a known biological timetable. The reviewed studies do not establish a fixed number of days or repetitions required to recondition a response.

Reduced effort is useful only when flexibility is preserved. The desired outcome may be an increasingly accessible first action, such as asking one clarifying question, while the person remains able to choose a different action when circumstances require it. Outcome measures should therefore include inappropriate use as well as successful use. Faster responding alone can reflect a rigid script; lower distress alone can reflect disengagement. Neither is sufficient evidence of the intended learning.

When an older response returns, assessment should examine which cue, demand, or contextual feature changed and whether the alternative was recognized, retrieved, or carried out. A brief return to supported rehearsal may be a candidate adaptation, but its value requires evaluation. The study should record both recurrence and recovery instead of defining success as never experiencing the response again. This makes maintenance a measurable process rather than a claim of permanent erasure.

Testing neural change without substituting it for meaningful change

Bo et al. (2024) distinguish distributed components of reappraisal and emotion generation, supporting measurement of multiple processes rather than a single regulatory switch. An optional mechanistic study could add longitudinal fMRI or EEG to the behavioral trial, using prespecified tasks, regions or patterns, reliable acquisition, and an active comparison group. Training stimuli and untrained stimuli should be distinguished. The design should test whether neural changes are associated with retained behavior and transfer, while accounting for repeated testing, stimulus familiarity, and alternative interpretations of the signal.

No single scan or physiological marker can certify that a person has been reconditioned. Evidence for NIRVA would first require meaningful behavioral benefit with acceptable burden. Evidence about a neural mechanism would require an additional, appropriately designed analysis; even an association between neural change and improvement would not by itself establish causation. This proposal therefore uses neural reconditioning to articulate a researchable learning program, while reserving claims of structural change, reconsolidation, or a distinct NIRVA-specific neural signature for evidence that directly tests them. Functional changes measured with fMRI or EEG should be described as such; those methods do not directly measure the formation of new synapses.

Designing for transfer and retention

Wang et al. (2024) found evidence in human fear-conditioning research that multiple-context extinction can reduce renewal. This provides a rationale for manipulating practice context, but it does not establish the optimal training method for everyday response patterns. The proposed application is to test varied practice against equally intensive practice in one context.

Context variation should include changes in setting, relationship, communication medium, and emotional demand where safe and relevant. Surface details can change while the underlying problem remains recognizable. Other exercises should deliberately change the underlying problem, requiring a different action. This guards against teaching an indiscriminate pause or reappraisal response.

Testing must include situations not used in practice, delayed assessments, and opportunities without prompts. If success depends on an instructor naming the pattern, independent recognition has not been demonstrated. If a person transfers a script but cannot judge when it is inappropriate, flexible transfer has not been demonstrated. Renewal of an old response in a new setting should prompt investigation of retrieval and context rather than an automatic conclusion that earlier learning was false.

Illustrative application

Consider a hypothetical participant who understands their tendency to defend themselves but repeatedly sends messages they later regret when receiving ambiguous feedback. During preparation, they identify urgency to answer and repeated editing of a rebuttal as possible cues. They choose obtaining specific feedback as their goal. In a safe rehearsal, they notice the cue, pause the send action, and identify the assumption that the feedback means personal rejection.

They may then decide that further information is needed, use a tolerable strategy to make that request possible, acknowledge the importance of being treated fairly, and send one question about the disputed task. An alternative outcome is that the feedback contains a clear threat or repeated mistreatment; alignment may then mean documenting the conduct, seeking support, or ending contact. The framework must accommodate both outcomes.

The evaluation would not ask only whether the participant remembered the five steps. It would ask whether the targeted action changed, whether the goal was served, whether the strategy imposed unacceptable costs, and whether the participant could adapt the skill in a different setting. This example illustrates the proposed logic and supplies no evidence of efficacy.

Staged empirical evaluation

The proposed initial population is adults who report recurring, unwanted defensive responses in ordinary interpersonal situations and can identify a personally meaningful target action. Trauma history may be recorded as a potential moderator; it is neither presumed nor sufficient for eligibility. This is not a proposed PTSD treatment trial. Co-design must establish suitability, accessibility, and procedures for situations involving ongoing coercion or danger before recruitment criteria are finalized.

Development should begin with co-design and feasibility work before an efficacy trial. Participants and appropriately qualified clinicians could evaluate comprehensibility, burden, accessibility, and possible adverse effects. The resulting manual should specify permissible adaptations, facilitator preparation, stop criteria, and treatment referrals when needed. A feasibility study would estimate recruitment, adherence, missing data, and measurement performance; it should not be described as proof of effectiveness.

The package-efficacy study and the earlier component proposal answer different questions and should be separately preregistered. A subsequent randomized study could compare the NIRVA practice package with a credible, time-matched emotion-regulation education condition. Both groups would receive equivalent attention and a clear rationale. Assignment would occur after baseline assessment, with outcome raters masked where practical. Existing care should be recorded and not withdrawn for the purpose of the study. The protocol, hypotheses, primary outcome, and analysis plan should be preregistered.

The primary efficacy outcome would be change in predefined goal-consistent behavior during an ethically acceptable, untrained simulation at delayed follow-up. A co-designed coding manual should specify the target action, acceptable alternatives, and circumstances making the action unavailable. Raters should evaluate the action separately from another person’s reaction or the participant’s distress. Reliability should be established before an efficacy trial. Daily-life outcomes would test ecological relevance. Secondary outcomes would include recognition timing, identification specificity, strategy implementation, distress, functioning, and perceived agency. Physiological measures could provide complementary information but would not be treated as interchangeable with behavior or as a diagnostic label for “fight mode.”

The comparator tests whether the package adds benefit beyond education, but would not establish superiority to existing skills-based therapies. A later study should compare NIRVA with an established, similarly intensive practice intervention. Factorial or dismantling designs could examine the contributions of cue-linked planning, context variation, and validation. A sequence comparison could test whether the prescribed ordering is helpful or unnecessarily restrictive.

Sample size should be calculated for a prespecified meaningful effect, allowing for repeated measurements and attrition. Analyses should follow randomized assignment, report uncertainty and missing-data sensitivity, and avoid choosing favorable secondary outcomes after results are known. Changes in putative mechanisms should precede changes in outcomes before mediation is interpreted, and even then mediation alone would not establish a biological mechanism.

The proposal would be weakened if knowledge improves without behavioral transfer, if benefits disappear without prompts, or if an active comparator performs equally well with lower burden. Increased self-blame, distress, excessive monitoring, avoidance, or suppression of necessary assertiveness would be adverse outcomes. These possibilities should be measured and published rather than treated as failures by participants to use the method correctly.

This article specifies a research program, not a recruitment-ready protocol. Feasibility findings must determine training dose, facilitator preparation, assessment intervals, and permissible adaptations. These choices should be fixed before the confirmatory trial, rather than selected after inspecting favorable outcomes.

Position within NSI and practical limits

NSI is defined as “The ability to understand the influences that shaped how you see, interpret, and respond to the world - and to intentionally choose responses that align with the person you desire to be.” The proposed intervention tests selected transitions within that definition. It does not validate NSI as a distinct intelligence or establish that all five NIRVA steps are necessary.

Many candidate components overlap with existing emotion-regulation and behavioral approaches. The claim under examination is whether their specified organization improves accessibility, transfer, or practical usefulness for the intended participants. This requires comparison, not a presumption of novelty or superiority.

The approach should not make individuals solely responsible for adapting to harmful conditions. Workplace design, interpersonal safety, material resources, and access to care can determine which responses are possible. Regulation skills and environmental change may both be relevant, but an intervention cannot compensate for every constraint. Clinical use would require appropriate competence and evidence beyond this conceptual proposal.

Conclusion

The proposed practice framework targets access to useful action when conceptual understanding is already present. NIRVA organizes candidate processes; repeated enactment and outcome review supply the proposed learning opportunities. Evaluation must distinguish whether the package helps, which components contribute, and whether gains persist in untrained situations. The changed-outcome hypothesis asks whether credible disconfirmation improves learning rate through expectancy updating. Neural measures can test additional hypotheses, but cannot replace evidence of meaningful behavioral benefit. The next empirical step is co-design and feasibility work, followed by preregistered comparisons that permit null findings and preserve participants’ agency.

Declarations

No intervention was administered and no participant data were generated for this paper. The author develops NSI and the NIRVA Method and has an intellectual and potential commercial interest in their evaluation. ChatGPT assisted with literature discovery, organization, drafting, and editorial revision. The human author is responsible for final source appraisal, interpretation, and submission. The research program described here requires prospective ethical review before participant recruitment. These manuscripts report no original dataset; data sharing is therefore not applicable. Related manuscript overlap should be disclosed to a receiving journal.

References

Bo, K., Kraynak, T. E., Kwon, M., Sun, M., Gianaros, P. J., & Wager, T. D. (2024). A systems identification approach using Bayes factors to deconstruct the brain bases of emotion regulation. Nature Neuroscience, 27, 975–987. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-024-01605-7

Denny, B. T., Inhoff, M. C., Zerubavel, N., Davachi, L., & Ochsner, K. N. (2015). Getting over it: Long-lasting effects of emotion regulation on amygdala response. Psychological Science, 26(9), 1377–1388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615578863

Denny, B. T., Lopez, R. B., Wu-Chung, E. L., Dicker, E. E., Goodson, P. N., Fan, J., Schulz, K. P., Ochsner, K. N., Trumbull, J., Lopez, M. M., Fels, S., Galitzer, H., Perez-Rodriguez, M., Goodman, M., Rosell, D. R., Hazlett, E. A., McClure, M. M., New, A. S., & Koenigsberg, H. W. (2024). Training in cognitive reappraisal normalizes whole-brain indices of emotion regulation in borderline personality disorder. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 9(8), 819–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2024.03.007

Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781

Hamza, J., Vytykačová, S., Janšáková, K., & Rajčáni, J. (2024). Cognitive reappraisal and acceptance following acute stress. Stress and Health, 40(5), e3469. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3469

Johnco, C. J., Norberg, M., Wuthrich, V. M., & Rapee, R. M. (2025). Cognitive restructuring before exposure therapy or behavioral experiments? How the timing of expectancy violation and magnitude of expectancy change influence exposure therapy outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 93(5), 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000953

Kooistra, M. J., Schoorl, M., Oprel, D. A. C., van der Does, W., & de Kleine, R. A. (2025). Maximizing expectancy violation and exposure outcomes in patients with PTSD. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 16(1), 2447183. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2024.2447183

Li, Y., Dai, J., Gao, W., & Yuan, J. (2025). Sustainable regulation effects of implementation intention-based reappraisal on negative emotions: Longitudinal EEG evidence. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(9), 1572–1588. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.1572

Luo, J., McRae, K., & Waugh, C. E. (2025). Committing to emotion regulation: Factors impacting the choice to implement a reappraisal after its generation. Emotion, 25(4), 787–801. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001455

Pacheco-Estefan, D., Bouyeure, A., Jacob, G., Fellner, M.-C., Lehongre, K., Lambrecq, V., Frazzini, V., Navarro, V., Güntürkün, O., Shen, L., Yang, J., Han, B., Chen, Q., & Axmacher, N. (2026). Representational dynamics during extinction of fear memories in the human brain. Nature Human Behaviour, 10, 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02268-5

Pittig, A., Heinig, I., Goerigk, S., Richter, J., Hollandt, M., Lueken, U., Pauli, P., Deckert, J., Kircher, T., Straube, B., Neudeck, P., Koelkebeck, K., Dannlowski, U., Arolt, V., Fydrich, T., Fehm, L., Ströhle, A., Totzeck, C., Margraf, J., ... Wittchen, H.-U. (2023). Change of threat expectancy as mechanism of exposure-based psychotherapy for anxiety disorders: Evidence from 8,484 exposure exercises of 605 patients. Clinical Psychological Science, 11(2), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026221101379

Wang, Y., Olsson, S., Lipp, O. V., & Ney, L. J. (2024). Renewal in human fear conditioning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 159, 105606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105606

Wessa, M., Sandner, M., Rimpel, J., & Schönfelder, S. (2024). The influence of acute stress exposure on cognitive reappraisal: A psychophysiological study. Stress, 27(1), 2329663. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253890.2024.2329663

Zainal, N. H., Tan, H. H., Hong, R. Y. S., & Newman, M. G. (2024). Testing the efficacy of a brief, self-guided mindfulness ecological momentary intervention on emotion regulation and self-compassion in social anxiety disorder: Randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mental Health, 11, e53712. https://doi.org/10.2196/53712