Knowing the Pattern, Repeating the Response

J.Michelle

Conceptual analysis | October 10, 2026

Abstract

Knowing a recurring emotional pattern does not establish that it will be recognized or interrupted when it occurs. This conceptual analysis distinguishes general pattern knowledge, recognition of a current state, recognition of that state’s possible influence on interpretation, and implementation of an alternative response. Transfer across settings and retention over time are separate assessment dimensions. A targeted narrative synthesis of human research on emotion regulation, stress, interoception, neural responses to repeated reappraisal, and contextual learning motivates these distinctions. Neural reconditioning is used descriptively for experience-dependent changes in response availability, rather than as a demonstrated biological mechanism or established treatment. A further hypothesis proposes that credible experiences which contradict threat or helplessness expectations may accelerate retained adaptive responding when they update subsequent expectations. Existing evidence supports investigating this proposition but does not establish faster anatomical change. The proposed assessment program tests whether recognition predicts later behavior beyond general knowledge and contextual constraints, without including the outcome in its own predictor. Nervous System Intelligence supplies an organizing framework whose incremental value remains open to empirical evaluation. The paper’s contribution is a set of separable measurement targets for an insight–action discrepancy, rather than a new diagnosis or evidence of intervention efficacy. No participant data are reported.

Keywords: insight; emotion regulation; context transfer; neural reconditioning; expectancy updating; Nervous System Intelligence

The problem of insight without response change

The statement “I know I do this” leaves several questions unanswered. Does the speaker recognize a tendency only after an interaction has ended? Can they identify it while it is unfolding? Do they understand which assumption or action is being influenced? Can they carry out a different response? These questions concern related capacities, but an adequate explanation cannot assume they are interchangeable.

An illustrative case makes the distinction concrete. A person recognizes that perceived criticism sometimes produces an urgent need to defend themselves. They can explain this pattern and identify it in family conversations. At work, a delayed response from a colleague produces the same urgency, but the person experiences the episode primarily as a problem of accountability. They may say that they feel activated while continuing to compose increasingly forceful messages. This is an invented illustration, not a clinical case or evidence that the colleague’s conduct is acceptable. Its purpose is to identify the separate questions that an assessment would need to answer.

The motivating observation is that insight may be available at one level while its implications remain unavailable at another. A label such as “fight mode” conveys a person’s experience; it does not establish a discrete autonomic state, diagnose a disorder, or explain every aspect of an interaction. Likewise, the presence of anger cannot establish that a concern is inaccurate. The relevant outcome is whether the person can act in accordance with an endorsed goal while responding adequately to the actual situation.

Scope and evidentiary approach

This paper offers a conceptual analysis informed by a targeted narrative search conducted on October 10, 2026. Search topics included emotion regulation, identification, implementation, reappraisal, acute stress, metacognition, interoception, contextual generalization, prediction error, and expectancy updating. Publisher pages and PubMed records were consulted, with emphasis on human studies published in 2024–2026 and selected foundational work. Search results were examined for findings that complicate, as well as support, the proposed account. The search was not exhaustive, preregistered, or conducted as a systematic review; no pooled effect estimate is presented.

Evidence is used at three levels. Direct findings establish what occurred in the cited tasks. Cross-domain comparisons suggest useful questions without establishing equivalence between tasks and daily life. The proposed distinctions and predictions are hypotheses requiring their own validation. Abstract-level reports support only the findings summarized there; they cannot substitute for detailed methodological appraisal. The paper does not estimate how common the motivating experience is.

This analysis addresses the identification and measurement of the problem. A companion manuscript, From Recognition to Response, develops a practice and evaluation proposal. The companion is related author work, not independent evidence for the present claims.

Distinguishing the capacities under discussion

General pattern knowledge is the ability to describe a recurring tendency outside a particular episode. Current-state recognition is the ability to identify one’s present emotional experience or action urge. Recognition of interpretive influence is the ability to identify how that experience may be shaping a specific inference, allocation of attention, or contemplated action. Implementation is the enactment of a feasible alternative that serves a specified goal. These are working definitions, not validated subscales or a claim that each corresponds to a separate neural system.

The distinction between state recognition and recognition of interpretive influence is especially relevant. “I am angry” does not necessarily include “I am treating uncertainty about this person’s intention as certainty.” Conversely, a person can identify the inference accurately yet still have difficulty changing what they do. Assessment must therefore permit recognition without implementation rather than redefining all unsuccessful implementation as inadequate awareness.

Transfer is a separate dimension. The same capacities should be assessed in familiar and unfamiliar contexts, with changes in people, stakes, sensory cues, and available responses. A person may perform well in a rehearsal but poorly in a workplace exchange; another may generalize recognition while failing to generalize the action they practiced. Performance after a delay also differs from immediate performance. A single global score would conceal these profiles.

These distinctions need not describe an invariant sequence. A well-practiced pause might occur before a person can explain their emotion, and recognition may improve after an action has already changed the situation. Feedback can revise earlier interpretations. The framework concerns separable observations, not a mandatory staircase through which everyone must pass.

Existing accounts and the proposed contribution

Gross’s (2015) extended process model already distinguishes identifying a need for regulation, selecting a strategy, and implementing it. The present proposal does not originate that separation. It asks whether general knowledge, event-specific recognition, and recognition of interpretive influence should be measured separately when applying that model to recurring patterns across life contexts.

Luo et al. (2025) examined the choice to implement a generated reappraisal in three preregistered studies. Their findings linked implementation choices to emotional feedback and the plausibility of an alternative interpretation. This provides task-level evidence that having an alternative available and pursuing it are distinguishable. It does not show that people who describe themselves as activated necessarily lack the capacity to act differently, or that implementation choices are determined by one factor.

Interoception supplies a second measurement precedent. Garfinkel et al. (2015) distinguished performance on heartbeat-detection tasks, subjective assessments of bodily sensitivity, and correspondence between confidence and performance. Those constructs should not be collapsed into a single claim of bodily awareness. The relevance here is methodological: a person’s belief that they recognize activation, their recorded timing of recognition, and their performance on a specified task require different evidence. Heartbeat performance is not a diagnostic test for the discrepancy described in this paper.

Psychological flexibility already addresses adaptation to context and personally meaningful goals. Westhoff et al. (2024) collected repeated daily-life observations from 114 young adults over three weeks and found associations between rigidity and negative cognitive-affective processes. These observational relationships do not establish causal direction. They do show why an account of recurring responses should be evaluated against existing flexibility constructs rather than assuming that new terminology identifies a new capacity.

Stress and neural explanations require specificity

Stress is a plausible moderator, but the evidence does not support a universal claim that activation disables cognitive regulation. Raio et al. (2013) found impaired regulation of conditioned fear following stress in their experimental paradigm. More recently, Wessa et al. (2024) studied 50 healthy adults and reported impairment in a later post-stress interval, with no group difference in the earlier interval. Timing therefore matters to the interpretation of that result.

A different experiment involving 98 healthy participants found no effect of its stress manipulation on emotion regulation. Reappraisal reduced reported negative emotion, but the strategy differences were not supported by the psychophysiological measures (Hamza et al., 2024). Taken together, these studies motivate tests of task, timing, and outcome dependence. They do not justify describing every difficult interaction as evidence of a cognitive system going offline.

Bo et al. (2024), using two human fMRI datasets, identified distributed components that differed in their relationship to reappraisal and emotion generation. Some emotion-related activity changed with reappraisal whereas a largely subcortical component did not. This challenges a simple account in which reasoning uniformly suppresses a single emotional center. It also limits interpretation: group-level imaging cannot identify the neural cause of an individual’s everyday experience, and task-related activation is not direct evidence of structural rewiring.

The proposed framework consequently treats subjective experience, interpretation, physiological responses, and overt behavior as separate measurement channels. A participant might report less distress without changing behavior, or act more effectively while remaining distressed. Neither pattern is inherently contradictory. Claims about salience, executive, memory, or autonomic systems should remain hypotheses unless those systems and their temporal relationships are measured.

Neural reconditioning: learning beyond a verbal explanation

Neural reconditioning is used here as a descriptive umbrella for experience-dependent changes that make a different cue interpretation or response more available over time. It is not the name of a single established treatment or a mechanism demonstrated by the present paper. The construct places learning at the center of the problem: understanding why a response developed need not provide the repeated, contextually relevant experiences through which an alternative becomes accessible. A person may acquire an accurate explanation while the situations that evoke the response continue to recruit familiar expectations and actions.

For research, the relevant unit is a cue–interpretation–action–outcome episode. A cue may be an ambiguous message, bodily urgency, or a particular interpersonal setting. The person attributes meaning, acts, and encounters consequences. One hypothesis is that an immediate consequence, such as ending uncertainty or escaping an uncomfortable exchange, can sustain a response despite later regret. This hypothesis requires event-level evidence; a recurring response should not automatically be classified as a habit or attributed to reinforcement solely because it feels automatic.

The proposed learning target is therefore broader than stronger intellectual agreement with an explanation. It includes recognizing relevant cues earlier, retrieving an alternative interpretation or action, carrying it out, and learning from what follows. These changes may develop unevenly. Earlier recognition can coexist with unchanged action; successful action in rehearsal can coexist with poor retrieval outside it. This account predicts that instruction alone and instruction plus repeated enactment can produce similar knowledge scores but different response profiles. That prediction remains to be tested in the population and situations of interest.

Human neural evidence for persistence and context dependence

Denny et al. (2015) studied 17 adults using repeated reappraisal of negative images. One week later, previously repeatedly reappraised images elicited lower amygdala responses than several comparison conditions, including equally repeated images without reappraisal. Selectively increased prefrontal activity did not accompany this later attenuation. The findings support the possibility of lasting changes in responses to practiced stimuli. They do not establish transfer to untrained interpersonal situations or show new anatomical pathways.

In a more recent proof-of-concept study, Denny et al. (2024) trained 22 participants with borderline personality disorder and 22 healthy controls across five sessions over two weeks. The clinical group showed reduced expression of a whole-brain negative-affect pattern after training, without a significant corresponding change in its behavioral self-report comparisons. Both groups received training; a diagnosis-matched untrained group was absent. The study illustrates why neural and subjective outcomes should be measured separately and why a clinical sample cannot establish a mechanism for everyone reporting defensive reactions.

Pacheco-Estefan et al. (2026; first published online in 2025) used intracranial recordings in 49 people undergoing epilepsy monitoring to examine fear conditioning and extinction. Their results linked later fear or safety expression to the recurrence of distinct, context-sensitive neural representations. This supplies human neural evidence relevant to the coexistence and retrieval of fear and extinction memories. Extinction in that experimental task is not equivalent to changing an interpersonal response, but it offers a testable explanation for why successful new learning may remain vulnerable to a change of setting.

Together, these findings motivate a learning account that distinguishes acquisition, retention, retrieval, and transfer. A changed response during supported practice addresses acquisition. Persistence after a delay addresses retention. Access when the cue appears without coaching addresses retrieval. Effective use in an untrained situation addresses transfer. No one measure establishes all four. A familiar response returning in a new context is compatible with earlier learning having occurred; it is not by itself evidence that the learning was erased.

Does evidence of a different outcome accelerate change?

The motivating observation yields a more specific hypothesis: a person can understand a process, verbalize it, and sincerely intend a different response while continuing to anticipate the same threatening outcome. Describing the pattern and predicting what will happen next are distinguishable. If a threat expectation remains credible at the moment of action, an abstract intention may provide little evidence that another response is possible or useful. This is a proposed account of some recognition–response discrepancies, not a claim that trauma explains every recurring response.

In learning research, a discrepancy between an expected event and an observed event is commonly discussed as prediction error or expectancy violation. The present hypothesis focuses on credible experiences that disconfirm a relevant threat or helplessness expectation. It separates three observations: the outcome was different; the person registered the difference as meaningful evidence; and their expectation for a subsequent situation changed. A pleasant event that seems unrelated, exceptional, or attributable entirely to circumstances that cannot recur may supply little usable evidence about the target prediction. Those interpretations should be measured rather than assumed.

Pittig et al. (2023) analyzed 8,484 exposure records from 605 patients with anxiety disorders. Better treatment outcomes were predicted by expectancy change and the extent to which mismatches translated into that change, rather than by expectancy violation itself. Because this was an analysis of learning indicators during treatment, it does not independently establish that manipulating mismatch causes faster improvement. It supports distinguishing an unexpected outcome from learning that alters a subsequent prediction.

Experimental evidence also resists an absolute claim. Johnco et al. (2025) randomized 249 adults with elevated public-speaking anxiety to three exposure approaches. Behavioral experiments and cognitive restructuring before exposure both outperformed exposure without explicit expectancy processing on anxiety reduction. Behavioral experiments produced greater expectancy change and shorter treatment duration than restructuring before exposure, but their anxiety-reduction advantage was not statistically significant. Session duration is not a direct measure of the rate of retained learning. The study supports testing how evidence is processed; it does not establish accelerated anatomical change.

In a PTSD study, Kooistra et al. (2025) randomized 60 patients to a single exposure session with or without an explicit expectancy-violation focus. That focus did not produce superior fear-response or symptom outcomes at the one-week assessment, although threat appraisal changed more. This directly limits claims that emphasizing a different outcome reliably speeds recovery after trauma. Neither this study nor the foregoing clinical analyses measured the speed at which new neural pathways form.

The resulting hypothesis is conditional: compared with understanding and intention alone, opportunities to encounter and process credible evidence against a relevant threat expectation may accelerate the acquisition of flexible, goal-consistent responses. Expectancy updating is a proposed mediator to measure prospectively, not a requirement used after the fact to select successful cases. Acceleration means a faster measured rate of improvement or fewer practice opportunities needed to reach a prespecified, retained behavioral criterion. Whether neural adaptation mediates that advantage is a separate hypothesis. These propositions connect the observation to existing learning theories; they do not establish a new discovery or a universal necessary condition for recovery.

A different outcome need not mean another person becomes kind or the entire situation ends well. The relevant prediction might be “If this person disapproves, I will be unable to act or leave.” Learning that one can request support, set a boundary, or leave when feasible could disconfirm that prediction even if disapproval remains. Conversely, if the prediction concerns whether a particular person is dangerous, changing one’s own reaction does not establish that they are safe. Researchers must specify which prediction the evidence actually addresses. The formulation does not require returning to a harmful person, recreating trauma, or achieving a perfect ending.

What a neural reconditioning account must demonstrate

The proposed account should be evaluated through changes in actual responses, not inferred from participants adopting neuroscience language. Longitudinal studies should test whether practice improves cue discrimination, access to alternatives, and flexible action beyond education, attention, and repeated assessment. They should distinguish practice with the same stimuli from performance with genuinely new examples and examine whether changes survive removal of reminders.

Functional imaging and electrophysiology may complement those outcomes. A change in fMRI pattern expression or an EEG component measures functional activity, not synapse formation, structural rewiring, or memory erasure. Even longitudinal functional measurements would not, by themselves, establish anatomical change. Nor does a neural difference automatically imply meaningful improvement in daily life. The present account makes no claim that recalling a difficult experience reliably destabilizes and rewrites it through reconsolidation. For NSI, the defensible proposition is that repeated, relevant learning may help translate recognition into response; the mechanisms and limits require independent measurement.

Why learning in one setting may not carry into another

Contextual learning provides an adjacent empirical foundation. Wang et al. (2024) reviewed human fear-renewal studies and found evidence that extinction conducted in multiple contexts can reduce return of fear. Their synthesis also documented substantial variation in procedures. These findings justify asking whether context influences access to learned responses; they do not prove that recognition of a relationship pattern is equivalent to extinction of a conditioned fear response.

Several alternatives deserve testing. A new situation may fail to retrieve relevant knowledge. The person may retrieve it but judge the current event to be an exception. The familiar response may produce immediate practical or interpersonal consequences that make it persist. An alternative may be understood but unavailable because time, authority, safety, or resources constrain action. These are competing explanations, not established mechanisms of a single syndrome.

Transfer also should not be defined as using the same behavior everywhere. A response suitable with a supportive friend may be ineffective with a coercive supervisor. Successful transfer concerns recognizing relevant similarities and differences, then selecting an appropriate response. Research that rewards uniform compliance would confuse adaptability with conformity.

Position within Nervous System Intelligence

Nervous System Intelligence is defined here 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.” This is the framework’s proposed definition, not a quotation from an independent empirical validation study.

The present analysis focuses on the connection between understanding influences and intentionally choosing a response. It proposes that this connection must be measured under specified conditions rather than inferred from a person’s vocabulary or retrospective explanation. It does not establish NSI as a distinct psychometric intelligence, biological faculty, or treatment.

The potential contribution is an integrated assessment of discrepancies across levels and contexts. Its value would be reduced if existing measures of metacognition, emotion regulation, psychological flexibility, and contextual learning explain the same observations equally well. Incremental prediction and practical usefulness, rather than a distinctive label, should determine whether the framework adds explanatory value.

A program for testing the distinctions

An initial study could combine structured interviews, ethically approved simulations, and brief daily-life sampling. Interviews would assess general knowledge without teaching the desired answers. Simulations would vary context and emotional demand while preserving identifiable features of the target pattern. Daily-life reports would ask about the event, recognition timing, the specific inference, available actions, the action taken, and its consequences. Researchers should preregister which outcomes depend on self-report and which can be independently observed.

The primary prediction is that recognition recorded before the action will predict independently rated subsequent implementation beyond general pattern knowledge and baseline performance. Implementation is the behavioral outcome; it must not also appear in the predictor or in a composite used to predict that same outcome. A second prediction is that recognition and implementation will show different transfer profiles. A third is that emotional intensity and stress timing will moderate these relationships in ways that vary across people. These predictions permit null findings: a single general measure may perform just as well, or the proposed subcomponents may fail to separate reliably.

Measurement must avoid circularity. Implementation success cannot be defined by whether the person agrees with an observer. Goals should be specified before outcomes are known, and independent raters should assess behaviors using explicit criteria. Examples include requesting missing information, stating a boundary without an unwanted insult, or safely ending an interaction. Accurate threat appraisal and effective protective action must remain possible successful outcomes.

Repeated measurements would permit multilevel analyses separating variation within a person from differences between people. Models should include plausible contextual variables such as sleep, pain, workload, perceived safety, and opportunity to act, without assuming that these variables explain any particular participant’s responses. Missing reports during high-intensity events require sensitivity analyses because the most difficult episodes may be least likely to be recorded.

Construct development would require reliability testing, comparison with established measures, and examination across populations and cultures. Study size should be justified by simulation or power analysis for the prespecified primary effect. A questionnaire that merely repeats the definitions would not validate them. Performance tasks, delayed assessments, and contexts not used in training are necessary to evaluate the central claims.

Recognition should be sampled without teaching the expected response during the assessment. Prompted and unprompted performance should be distinguished because asking about a pattern can itself change the next action. A coded opportunity measure should indicate whether an alternative was feasible. Failure to use an unavailable response must not be scored as a recognition or regulation deficit. Participant goals, behavioral criteria, and external consequences should remain separate variables.

Interpretive and ethical limits

The motivating experience is meaningful as a source of questions, but it is not evidence of prevalence, causation, or intervention efficacy. The cited experiments largely use structured tasks, selected populations, and limited observation windows. Everyday conflict includes reciprocal behavior, power, ongoing danger, and material constraints that these tasks may not represent.

Researchers must also distinguish an unwanted automatic response from deliberate disagreement, assertiveness, or refusal. An institution should not use a regulation score to discount a legitimate complaint. Nor should a person be judged deficient because they remain distressed in an unsafe setting. A useful framework must preserve the possibility that changing the environment is more appropriate than changing the person’s interpretation.

Finally, stronger language about automaticity requires evidence beyond repetition. Calling a behavior habitual does not establish its insensitivity to consequences or the mechanism maintaining it. The present account remains at the level of observable discrepancies until experimental work can distinguish retrieval, appraisal, skill, motivation, reinforcement, and opportunity explanations.

Conclusion

A person’s explanation of a pattern cannot establish when that knowledge becomes usable. Distinguishing knowledge, state recognition, recognition of interpretive influence, and subsequent action makes the discrepancy assessable. Testing these capacities across contexts and delays can reveal whether the difficulty concerns recognition, implementation, or transfer. The proposed neural reconditioning account adds a learning question: can repeated, relevant experience improve access to alternatives? Credible disconfirmation of threat or helplessness expectations is a candidate accelerator, with expectancy updating tested as a mediator. Behavioral learning rate, retention, transfer, and neural change require distinct evidence. The contribution of NSI will depend on whether this organization improves explanation or assessment beyond existing models.

Declarations

No new participant data were collected or analyzed for this conceptual paper. The author develops the NSI framework and NIRVA Method and has an intellectual and potential commercial interest in their evaluation. AI assistance from ChatGPT was used for literature discovery, organization, drafting, and editorial revision. Responsibility for the final argument, source appraisal, and submission rests with the human author. 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

Garfinkel, S. N., Seth, A. K., Barrett, A. B., Suzuki, K., & Critchley, H. D. (2015). Knowing your own heart: Distinguishing interoceptive accuracy from interoceptive awareness. Biological Psychology, 104, 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.11.004

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

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

Raio, C. M., Orederu, T. A., Palazzolo, L., Shurick, A. A., & Phelps, E. A. (2013). Cognitive emotion regulation fails the stress test. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(37), 15139–15144. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1305706110

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

Westhoff, M., Heshmati, S., Siepe, B., Vogelbacher, C., Ciarrochi, J., Hayes, S. C., & Hofmann, S. G. (2024). Psychological flexibility and cognitive-affective processes in young adults’ daily lives. Scientific Reports, 14, 8182. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-58598-3