Controllability modulates the neural response to predictable but not unpredictable threat in humans

Abstract

Stress resilience is mediated, in part, by our ability to predict and control threats within our environment. Therefore, determining the neural mechanisms that regulate the emotional response to predictable and controllable threat may provide important new insight into the processes that mediate resilience to emotional dysfunction and guide the future development of interventions for anxiety disorders. To better understand the effect of predictability and controllability on threat-related brain activity in humans, two groups of healthy volunteers participated in a yoked Pavlovian fear conditioning study during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Threat predictability was manipulated by presenting an aversive unconditioned stimulus (UCS) that was either preceded by a conditioned stimulus (i.e., predictable) or by presenting the UCS alone (i.e., unpredictable). Similar to animal model research that has employed yoked fear conditioning procedures, one group (Controllable Condition; CC), but not the other group (Uncontrollable Condition; UC) was able to terminate the UCS. The fMRI signal response within the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (PFC), dorsomedial PFC, ventromedial PFC, and posterior cingulate was diminished during predictable compared to unpredictable threat (i.e., UCS). In addition, threat-related activity within the ventromedial PFC and bilateral hippocampus was diminished only to threats that were both predictable and controllable. These findings provide insight into how threat predictability and controllability affects the activity of brain regions (i.e., ventromedial PFC and hippocampus) involved in emotion regulation, and may have important implications for better understanding neural processes that mediate emotional resilience to stress.

Exploring the Neurocircuitry Underpinning Predictability of Threat in Soldiers with PTSD Compared to Deployment Exposed Controls

“…More specifically, the DEC group’s threat-related neural activation was greater to predictable threat compared to unpredictable threat, which is not consistent with the findings of prior studies [16-18, 23, 24]. In contrast, the PTSD group’s diminished activation of the regions of interest (ROIs) is more in line with what is observed in healthy, non-clinical participants.…”

“…, unpredictable). Findings using this approach in healthy individuals have shown diminution of both SCR expression and neural activation to predictable compared to unpredictable threat [16-18, 23, 24]. Both the PTSD and DEC groups showed learning-related changes in threat expectancy and threat-elicited SCR expression.…”

“…, the UCS is predictable) compared to presentations of the UCS alone ( i.e. , the UCS is unpredictable) [16-18, 23, 24]. Thus, this diminished emotional response provides an index of one’s ability to regulate the emotional response to an aversive threat.…”

“…In addition, conditioned diminution of the amygdala to predictable threat appears to rely on functional connections with regions of the PFC [16, 18, 34]. Further, individual differences in anxiety level among healthy adults impact the threat-elicited response within the neural circuit that mediates fear-related processes [18, 24, 34]. …”

Tales of the unexpected: Integrating career shocks in the contemporary careers literature

“…Furthermore, and following from the above, predictability and controllability may interact in bringing about important career outcomes. Initial evidence for this proposition is provided by Wood et al (2015) who, using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), showed that threat predictability and controllability interact to affect brain activity involved in emotion regulation and resilience to stress. Indeed, it might especially be the interaction between the degree of predictability and controllability that determines the impact on career outcomes, for example, in a situation of being laid off: especially when both predictability and controllability of this event are low, this would likely result in negative career outcomes.…”