Background The lateral (LA) and central (CE), but not basal (B), amygdala nuclei are necessary for reactive Pavlovian fear responses such as freezing. The amygdala also plays a key role in the acquisition and expression of active instrumental defensive behaviors, but little is known about the specific roles of amygdala nuclei. Using a Sidman active avoidance (AA) task, we examined the necessity of LA, B, and CE for learning and performance. Pavlovian freezing was simultaneously assessed to examine the contributions of amygdala nuclei to the transition from reactive to active defensive responding. Methods Rats received electrolytic lesions of LA, CE or B before AA training, or following overtraining. Rats that expressed low levels of AA performance during training received bilateral electrolytic lesions to CE to eliminate competing freezing reactions and rescue AA. AA performance and freezing were assessed. Results Damage to LA and B, but not CE, impaired the acquisition of AA. Performance of AA became amygdala-independent following overtraining. CE lesions abolished Pavlovian freezing and rescued instrumental AA performance in rats that expressed low levels of avoidance responses and high levels of freezing during training. Conclusions While the acquisition of Pavlovian fear depends on LA and CE, but not B, acquisition of instrumental AA is dependent on LA and B, but not CE. CE-dependent Pavlovian processes that control freezing can constrain avoidance behavior. Performance of well-trained AA becomes independent of all three amygdala nuclei. Thus, it appears that different output pathways of LA mediate reactive and active conditioned defensive responding.

Active avoidance (AA) is an important paradigm for studying mechanisms of aversive instrumental learning, pathological anxiety, and active coping. Unfortunately, AA neurocircuits are poorly understood, partly because behavior is highly variable and reflects a competition between Pavlovian reactions and instrumental actions. Here we exploited the behavioral differences between good and poor avoiders to elucidate the AA neurocircuit. Rats received Sidman AA training and expression of the activity-dependent immediate-early gene c-fos was measured after a shock-free AA test. Six brain regions with known or putative roles in AA were evaluated: amygdala, periaqueductal gray, nucleus accumbens, dorsal striatum, prefrontal cortex (PFC), and hippocampus. Good avoiders showed little Pavlovian freezing and high AA rates at test, the opposite of poor avoiders. Although c-Fos activation was observed throughout the brain, differential activation was found only in subregions of amygdala and PFC. Interestingly, c-Fos correlated with avoidance and freezing in only five of 20 distinct areas evaluated: lateral amygdala, central amygdala, medial amygdala, basal amygdala, and infralimbic PFC. Thus, activity in specific amygdala -PFC circuits likely mediates the competition between instrumental actions and Pavlovian reactions after AA training. Individual differences in AA behavior, long considered a nuisance by researchers, may be the key to elucidating the AA neurocircuit and understanding pathological response profiles.

In the middle of growing consensus that genomics researchers should offer to return clinically valid, medically relevant, and medically actionable findings identified in the course of research, psychiatric genetics researchers face new challenges. As they uncover the genetic architecture of psychiatric disorders through genome-wide association studies and integrate whole genome and whole exome sequencing to their research, there is a pressing need for examining these researchers' views regarding the return of results (RoR) and the unique challenges for offering RoR from psychiatric genetics research. Based on qualitative interviews with 39 psychiatric genetics researchers from different countries operating at the forefront of their field, we provide an insider's view of researchers' practices regarding RoR and the most contentious issues in psychiatry researchers' decision-making around RoR, including what are the strongest ethical, scientific, and practical arguments for and against offering RoR from this research. Notably, findings suggest that psychiatric genetics researchers (85%) overwhelmingly favor offering RoR of at least some findings, but only 22% of researchers are returning results. Researchers identified a number of scientific and practical concerns about RoR, and about how to return results in a responsible way to patients diagnosed with a severe psychiatric disorder. Furthermore, findings help highlight areas for further discussion and resolution of conflicts in the practice of RoR in psychiatric genetics research. As the pace of discovery in psychiatric genetics continues to surge, resolution of these uncertainties gains greater urgency to avoid ethical pitfalls and to maximize the positive impact of RoR. K E Y W O R D S attitudes, empirical, genetic, psychiatry, qualitative

We estimate that 208,000 deep brain stimulation (DBS) devices have been implanted to address neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders worldwide. DBS Think Tank presenters pooled data and determined that DBS expanded in its scope and has been applied to multiple brain disorders in an effort to modulate neural circuitry. The DBS Think Tank was founded in 2012 providing a space where clinicians, engineers, researchers from industry and academia discuss current and emerging DBS technologies and logistical and ethical issues facing the field. The emphasis is on cutting edge research and collaboration aimed to advance the DBS field. The Eighth Annual DBS Think Tank was held virtually on September 1 and 2, 2020 (Zoom Video Communications) due to restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The meeting focused on advances in: (1) optogenetics as a tool for comprehending neurobiology of diseases and on optogenetically-inspired DBS, (2) cutting edge of emerging DBS technologies, (3) ethical issues affecting DBS research and access to care, (4) neuromodulatory approaches for depression, (5) advancing novel hardware, software and imaging methodologies, (6) use of neurophysiological signals in adaptive neurostimulation, and (7) use of more advanced technologies to improve DBS clinical outcomes. There were 178 attendees who participated in a DBS Think Tank survey, which revealed the expansion of DBS into several indications such as obesity, post-traumatic stress disorder, addiction and Alzheimer’s disease. This proceedings summarizes the advances discussed at the Eighth Annual DBS Think Tank.