Converging evidence for one-trial context fear conditioning with an immediate shock: Importance of shock potency.

Bevins, Rick A.; McPhee, Janice E.; Rauhut, Anthony S.; Ayres, John J. B.

doi:10.1037/0097-7403.23.3.312

Cited by 33 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the immediate shock condition did result in some freezing; that is, rats not receiving a reinstatement US froze less during this test than did rats receiving either the delayed or the immediate shock [F(1,43) = 325.79 and 19.48, respectively]. The latter result supports the recent findings of Bevins et al (1997) that under some circumstances rats in the immediate-shock condition can acquire some association between the context and the shock. Clearly, however, the level of contextual conditioning was much less in the immediate-shock condition than in the delayed-shock condition.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

“…There are several demonstrations that rats shocked immediately after being placed in a novel context do not freeze when reexposed to that context, whereas rats shocked after a delay exhibit substantial levels of freezing (e.g., Blanchard, Fukanaga, & Blanchard, 1976;Fanselow, 1980;Kiernan, Westbrook, & Cranney, 1995; but see Bevins, McPhee, Rauhut, & Ayres, 1997). The freezing deficit in the immediate-shock condition has been interpreted as being due to an encoding failure; rats in this condition do not form an association between the context and the shock (Fanselow, 1986(Fanselow, , 1990Kiernan & Westbrook, 1993; but see Bevins et al, 1997, for an alternate explanation). Therefore, if new learning is the critical determinant of whether postextinction reinstatement occurs, then rats in the immediate shock condition should not exhibit the effect.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reinstatement of fear to an extinguished conditioned context

Richardson

Duffield

Bailey

et al. 1999

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats were shocked in the black but not the white compartment of a shuttlebox and then exposed to the black compartment in the absence of the shock unconditioned stimulus (US) to extinguish fear responses (passive avoidance). In five experiments, rats were then shocked in a reinstatement context (distinctively different from the shuttlebox) to determine the conditions that reinstate extinguished fear responding to the black compartment. Rats shocked immediately upon exposure to the reinstatement chamber failed to show either reinstatement of avoidance of the black compartment or fear responses (freezing) when tested in the reinstatement chamber. In contrast, rats shocked 30 sec after exposure to the reinstatement chamber exhibited both reinstatement of avoidance of the black compartment and freezing responses in the reinstatement chamber (Experiment 1). Rats shocked after 30 sec of exposure to the reinstatement chamber but then exposed to that chamber in the absence of shock failed to exhibit reinstatement of the avoidance response and did not freeze when tested in the reinstatement chamber (Experiment 2). Rats exposed to a signaled shock in the reinstatement chamber and then exposed to that chamber in the absence of shock also failed to exhibit reinstatement of the avoidance response (Experiment 5). These rats showed fear responses to the signal but not to the reinstatement chamber. Finally, rats exposed for some time (20 min) to the reinstatement chamber before shock exhibited reinstatement of the avoidance response but failed to freeze when tested in the reinstatement chamber (Experiments 3 and 4). These results are discussed in terms of the contextual conditioning (Bouton, 1994) and the US representation (Rescorla, 1979) accounts of postextinction reinstatement.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reinstatement of fear to an extinguished conditioned context

Richardson

Duffield

Bailey

et al. 1999

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, these asymmetrical state dependency accounts get theoretically burdensome (see [32] for a similar conclusion). Third, there is a more parsimonious explanation that relies on stimulus sampling and stimulus element learning models [5,12,13] that readily accounts for the data pattern.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nicotine does not produce state-dependent effects on learning in a Pavlovian appetitive goal tracking task with rats

Bevins

Penrod

Reichel

2007

Behavioural Brain Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Past research has shown that when rats received 0.4 mg base/kg nicotine paired reliably with intermittent sucrose delivery that anticipatory sucrose-seeking behavior (i.e., goal tracking) was differentially displayed in the nicotine state relative to intermixed saline sessions in which no sucrose was delivered. The present research extended this observation to a lower dose of nicotine (i.e., 0.2 mg base/kg) and tested a state-dependent learning account of differential conditioned responding. According to this account, the increase in goal tracking on nicotine sessions reflects a chambersucrose association that is only recalled when in the nicotine state. We used a 2 × 2 factorial design in which rats received sucrose deliveries in one drug state (nicotine or saline) and were then tested in the same state (Nic→Nic or Sal→Sal) or a different state (Nic→Sal or Sal→Nic) after acquiring the conditioned response. A state-dependency account predicts disruption in conditioned goal tracking for rats that receive a shift in drug state on the test day. This disruption did not occur suggesting that differential control of conditioned responding by nicotine is more likely due to a direct excitatory association between the interoceptive cueing effects of nicotine and the appetitive qualities of sucrose.

show abstract

“…If so, our data suggest that short-term conditioned fear responses may survive, at least in part, CEA lesions or inactivation. Alternatively, freezing during the conditioning session may represent an unconditioned response to footshock (Bevins et al 1997). In either case, it may be that other brain areas that are essential for freezing behavior, such as the periaqueductal gray, are involved in the expression of fear responses (whether conditioned or unconditioned) shortly after footshock.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The central nucleus of the amygdala is essential for acquiring and expressing conditional fear after overtraining

Zimmerman¹,

Rabinak²,

McLachlan³

et al. 2007

Learn. Mem.

112

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The basolateral complex of the amygdala (BLA) is critical for the acquisition and expression of Pavlovian fear conditioning in rats. Nonetheless, rats with neurotoxic BLA lesions can acquire conditional fear after overtraining (75 trials). The capacity of rats with BLA lesions to acquire fear memory may be mediated by the central nucleus of the amygdala (CEA). To examine this issue, we examined the influence of neurotoxic CEA lesions or reversible inactivation of the CEA on the acquisition and expression of conditional freezing after overtraining in rats. Rats with pretraining CEA lesions (whether alone or in combination with BLA lesions) did not acquire conditional freezing to either the conditioning context or an auditory conditional stimulus after extensive overtraining. Similarly, post-training lesions of the CEA or BLA prevented the expression of overtrained fear. Lastly, muscimol infusions into the CEA prevented both the acquisition and the expression of overtrained fear, demonstrating that the effects of CEA lesions are not likely due to the destruction of en passant axons. These results suggest that the CEA is essential for conditional freezing after Pavlovian fear conditioning. Moreover, overtraining may engage a compensatory fear conditioning circuit involving the CEA in animals with damage to the BLA.Pavlovian fear conditioning is an important model for studying the neural mechanisms contributing to emotional learning and memory (Davis 1992;LeDoux 2000;Maren 2001Maren , 2005a. In this paradigm, a conditioned stimulus (CS), such as a tone, is presented with an aversive unconditional stimulus (US), such as a footshock. The pairing of the CS and the US comes to elicit conditioned fear responses (CRs), including increased heart rate, blood pressure, acoustic startle, and somatomotor immobility (i.e., freezing). It is now well established that the amygdala is critical for this form of learning (Fendt and Fanselow 1999 In contrast, the medial division of the CEA (CEm) has been posited to be the primary output structure of the amygdala. The CEA receives information from the LA via the intercalated nuclei, and it also receives direct projections from the BL and thalamus. The CEm, in turn, projects to brain areas involved in the production of the CR, including the periaqueductal gray and the lateral hypothalamus, which mediate freezing and cardiovascular response, respectively (LeDoux et al. 1988). However, recent studies suggest that the CEA may also have a role in the acquisition of conditional fear (Goosens and Maren 2003;Maren 2005a;Wilensky et al. 2006), and it is anatomically positioned to serve this role (Pare et al. 2004). These findings lend support to two competing models of information processing within the amygdala during learning. In the serial model, information about the CS and US enter and are associated within the BLA, and this information is then transmitted to the CEA for the expression of fear. Alternatively, the parallel model proposes that the BLA and CEA both perform associative function...

show abstract

Converging evidence for one-trial context fear conditioning with an immediate shock: Importance of shock potency.

Cited by 33 publications

References 31 publications

Reinstatement of fear to an extinguished conditioned context

Reinstatement of fear to an extinguished conditioned context

Nicotine does not produce state-dependent effects on learning in a Pavlovian appetitive goal tracking task with rats

The central nucleus of the amygdala is essential for acquiring and expressing conditional fear after overtraining

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About