Placing prediction into the fear circuit

McNally, Gavan P.; Johansen, Joshua P.; Blair, Hugh T.

doi:10.1016/j.tins.2011.03.005

Cited by 260 publications

(243 citation statements)

References 105 publications

(140 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

231

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first-level design matrix of each participant included separate regressors for each of the six conditions (CSA, CSB, CSAX, CSBY, CSX, CSY), which were modeled as delta functions at CS onset and were convolved with the canonical hemodynamic response function. We decided to focus our analysis on the well studied enhancement of CSrelated amygdala responses in aversive learning (Quirk et al, 1995;LaBar et al, 1998;Paton et al, 2006) and did not investigate US-related responses, as evidence for the amygdala coding prediction errors in aversive learning is scarce (Belova et al, 2007;Delgado et al, 2008b;Li et al, 2011;McNally et al, 2011). Nevertheless, we wanted to account for the variance induced by US-related responses and therefore created similar regressors at US onset.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neurobiological Mechanisms Underlying the Blocking Effect in Aversive Learning

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current theories of classical conditioning assume that learning depends on the predictive relationship between events, not just on their temporal contiguity. Here we employ the classic experiment substantiating this reasoning-the blocking paradigm-in combination with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate whether human amygdala responses in aversive learning conform to these assumptions. In accordance with blocking, we demonstrate that significantly stronger behavioral and amygdala responses are evoked by conditioned stimuli that are predictive of the unconditioned stimulus than by conditioned stimuli that have received the same pairing with the unconditioned stimulus, yet have no predictive value. When studying the development of this effect, we not only observed that it was related to the strength of previous conditioned responses, but also that predictive compared with nonpredictive conditioned stimuli received more overt attention, as measured by fMRI-concurrent eye tracking, and that this went along with enhanced amygdala responses. We furthermore observed that prefrontal regions play a role in the development of the blocking effect: ventromedial prefrontal cortex (subgenual anterior cingulate) only exhibited responses when conditioned stimuli had to be established as nonpredictive for an outcome, whereas dorsolateral prefrontal cortex also showed responses when conditioned stimuli had to be established as predictive. Most importantly, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex connectivity to amygdala flexibly switched between positive and negative coupling, depending on the requirements posed by predictive relationships. Together, our findings highlight the role of predictive value in explaining amygdala responses and identify mechanisms that shape these responses in human fear conditioning.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neurobiological Mechanisms Underlying the Blocking Effect in Aversive Learning

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Henson & Gagnepain, 2010;McNally et al, 2011). According to such models, a constant filtering of sensations by top-down predictions and a parallel updating of the latter based on prediction errors (signals representing the mismatch between predictions and sensations), with the ultimate goal of minimizing prediction errors, is an imperfect but highly efficient means of perceiving sensations (Rao and Ballard, 1999).…”

Section: Embodied Mentalization: a Free Energy Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Mentalizing homeostasis: The social origins of interoceptive inference

Fotopoulou

Tsakiris

2017

Neuropsychoanalysis

336

263

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is the self already relational in its very bodily foundations? The question of whether our mental life is initially and primarily shaped by embodied dimensions of the individual or by interpersonal relations is debated in many fields, including psychology, philosophy, psychoanalysis, and more recently, cognitive neuroscience. In this interdisciplinary target article, we put forward the radical claim that even some of the most minimal aspects of selfhood, namely the feeling qualities associated with being an embodied subject, are fundamentally shaped by embodied interactions with other people in early infancy and beyond. Such embodied interactions allow the developing organism to mentalize its homeostatic regulation. In other words, embodied interactions contribute directly to the building of mental models of the infant's physiological states, given the need to maintain such states within a given dynamic range despite internal or external perturbations.

show abstract

“…There was no freezing during the first CS -footshock US. Rats were sacrificed after the first Stage II CS -footshock US pairing and pMAPK immunoreactivity (pMAPK-IR) was studied in several brain regions linked to fear learning, including the prefrontal cortex, amygdala, midline thalamus, nucleus accumbens, hypothalamus, and periaqueductal gray (PAG) (McNally et al 2011); the results are shown in Figure 2. Stage II behavioral data were not recorded due to technical difficulties with recording equipment.…”

Section: Experiments 1bmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural correlates of appetitive–aversive interactions in Pavlovian fear conditioning

Nasser

McNally

2013

Learn. Mem.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We used Pavlovian counterconditioning in rats to identify the neural mechanisms for appetitive -aversive motivational interactions. In Stage I, rats were trained on conditioned stimulus (CS) -food (unconditioned stimulus [US]) pairings. In Stage II, this appetitive CS was transformed into a fear CS via pairings with footshock. The development of fear responses was retarded in rats that had received Stage I appetitive training. This counterconditioning was associated with increased levels of phosphorylated mitogen activated protein kinase immunoreactivity (pMAPK-IR) in several brain regions, including midline thalamus, rostral agranular insular cortex (RAIC), lateral amygdala, and nucleus accumbens core and shell, but decreased expression in the ventrolateral quadrant of the midbrain periaqueductal gray. These brain regions showing differential pMAPK-IR have previously been identified as part of the fear prediction error circuit. We then examined the causal role of RAIC MAPK in fear learning and showed that Stage II fear learning was prevented by RAIC infusions of the MEK inhibitor PD098059 (0.5 mg/hemisphere). Taken together, these results show that there are opponent interactions between the appetitive and aversive motivational systems during fear learning and that the transformation of a reward CS into a fear CS is linked to heightened activity in the fear prediction error circuit.

show abstract

Placing prediction into the fear circuit

Cited by 260 publications

References 105 publications

Neurobiological Mechanisms Underlying the Blocking Effect in Aversive Learning

Neurobiological Mechanisms Underlying the Blocking Effect in Aversive Learning

Mentalizing homeostasis: The social origins of interoceptive inference

Neural correlates of appetitive–aversive interactions in Pavlovian fear conditioning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About