Species-specific danger signals, endogenous opioid analgesia, and defensive behavior.

Fanselow, Michael S.; Sigmundi, Ronald A.

doi:10.1037/0097-7403.12.3.301

Cited by 50 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To address the effect of novelty, we employed a preexposure-mediated CFC paradigm (Fig. 2M) (7,22,23) in which the contextual representation is formed on day 1 while the context-shock association occurs on day 2 (Materials and Methods).…”

Section: -L)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Locus coeruleus input to hippocampal CA3 drives single-trial learning of a novel context

Wagatsuma

Okuyama

Sun

et al. 2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

227

181

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The memory for a new episode is formed immediately upon experience and can last up to a lifetime. It has been shown that the hippocampal network plays a fundamental role in the rapid acquisition of a memory of a one-time experience, in which the novelty component of the experience promotes the prompt formation of the memory. However, it remains unclear which neural circuits convey the novelty signal to the hippocampus for the singletrial learning. Here, we show that during encoding neuromodulatory input from locus coeruleus (LC) to CA3, but not CA1 or to the dentate gyrus, is necessary to facilitate novel contextual learning. Silencing LC activity during exposure to a novel context reduced subsequent reactivation of the engram cell ensembles in CA3 neurons and in downstream CA1 upon reexposure to the same context. Calcium imaging of the cells reactivated in both novel and familiar contexts revealed that suppression of LC inputs at the time of encoding resulted in more variable place fields in CA3 neurons. These results suggest that neuromodulatory input from LC to CA3 is crucial for the formation of a persistent memory in the hippocampus.

show abstract

Section: -L)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Locus coeruleus input to hippocampal CA3 drives single-trial learning of a novel context

Wagatsuma

Okuyama

Sun

et al. 2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

227

181

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ethograms are inventories of such behaviors, ones that are stereotyped enough to permit identification and cataloging (e.g., Baerends, 1976) and sufficiently general in the species (Gallistel, 1980). Many are elicited by features of the context: various forms of predatory behavior in the presence of prey, antipredator behavior in a fear-inducing context (Fanselow, 1989;Fanselow & Sigmundi, 1986;Pear, Moody, & Persinger, 1972), mating behavior, displacement activities (Slater & Ollason, 1972), and so on (Alcock, 2005). Baum (2005Baum ( , 2012 calls these action patterns PIE-related activities.…”

Section: Provenancementioning

confidence: 99%

Adjunctive behaviors are operants

Killeen

Pellón

2013

Learn Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adjunctive behaviors such as scheduleinduced polydipsia are said to be induced by periodic delivery of incentives, but not reinforced by them. That standard treatment assumes that contingency is necessary for conditioning and that delay of reinforcement gradients are very steep. The arguments and evidence for this position are reviewed and rejected. In their place, data are presented that imply different gradients for different classes of responses. Proximity between response and reinforcer, rather than contingency or contiguity, is offered as a key principle of association. These conceptions organize a wide variety of observations and provide the rudiments for a more general theory of conditioning.Keywords Adjunctive . Conditioning . Contingency . Contiguity . Proximity . Schedule inducedResponse acquisition with delayed reinforcement is a robust phenomenon that may not depend on a mechanically defined response or an immediate external stimulus change to mediate the temporal gap between response and reinforcer. Critchfield and Lattal (1993, p. 373) Schedule-induced drinking as the prototypical adjunctive behavior: Arguments against reinforcement Ever since the laboratory discovery of adjunctive behavioralso known as schedule-induced or interim behavior-by John Falk (1961), analysts have treated these anomalies as belonging to a separate class of behavior, induced by incentives such as periodic food, but not reinforced by them. The discovery of adjunctive behavior was a bombshell in the behavioral community, since it seemed an exception to the orderly account of all behavior subsumed under the tripartite hegemony of operant, respondent, and unconditioned responses. What were the implications for the Skinnerian project of applied behavior analysis, if so substantial a proportion of the behavior that was induced by reinforcement was adamant to control by reinforcement? In the case of schedule-induced polydipsia, Falk (1971) voiced the contemporary amazement:It was an outright absurd [finding]. It was absurd because food deprivation in rats yields a decrease in water intake, not an increase. It was absurd because heating a large quantity of room-temperature water to body heat and expelling it as copious urine is wasteful for an animal already pressed for energy stores by food deprivation. It is absurd for an animal to drink itself into a dilutional hyponatremia bordering on water intoxication. But perhaps most absurd was not the lack of a metabolic or patho-regulatory reason for the polydipsia, but the lack of an acceptable behavioral account. (p. 577) Falk detailed the arguments against various "acceptable behavioral accounts," which he summarized in the following: "Polydipsia is not the result of food delivery directly or adventitiously reinforcing water intake. Nor does it serve a problem-solving mediational, or timing function. Furthermore, drinking is not an unconditioned

show abstract

“…Instead, it is a way for the organism to rapidly cope in a life-threatening situation with a set of prepackaged behaviors to increase the chance for survival (Bolles, 1970;Fanselow, 1994;Timberlake, 1993). These states have been described for experimental animals both in encounters with predators (Blanchard et al, 1990;Fanselow and Sigmundi, 1986) but also elicited by noxious stimulation (Fanselow, 1982), for example, the dorsolateral periaqueductal grey (PAG) may independently of cortical networks increase autonomic responses, induce flight or fight behaviors, and nonopioid analgesia in direct response to noxious stimulation. Thus, it may be proposed that the dorsolateral PAG is involved in the initial response to noxious input that also includes an autonomic response (Fanselow, 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brainstem involvement in the initial response to pain

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The autonomic responses to acute pain exposure usually habituate rapidly while the subjective ratings of pain remain high for more extended periods of time. Thus, systems involved in the autonomic response to painful stimulation, for example the hypothalamus and the brainstem, would be expected to attenuate the response to pain during prolonged stimulation. This suggestion is in line with the hypothesis that the brainstem is specifically involved in the initial response to pain. To probe this hypothesis, we performed a positron emission tomography (PET) study where we scanned subjects during the first and second minute of a prolonged tonic painful cold stimulation (cold pressor test) and nonpainful cold stimulation. Galvanic skin response (GSR) was recorded during the PET scanning as an index of autonomic sympathetic response. In the main effect of pain, we observed increased activity in the thalamus bilaterally, in the contralateral insula and in the contralateral anterior cingulate cortex but no significant increases in activity in the primary or secondary somatosensory cortex. The autonomic response (GSR) decreased with stimulus duration. Concomitant with the autonomic response, increased activity was observed in brainstem and hypothalamus areas during the initial vs. the late stimulation. This effect was significantly stronger for the painful than for the cold stimulation. Activity in the brainstem showed pain-specific covariation with areas involved in pain processing, indicating an interaction between the brainstem and cortical pain networks. The findings indicate that areas in the brainstem are involved in the initial response to noxious stimulation, which is also characterized by an increased sympathetic response. D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

show abstract

Species-specific danger signals, endogenous opioid analgesia, and defensive behavior.

Cited by 50 publications

References 37 publications

Locus coeruleus input to hippocampal CA3 drives single-trial learning of a novel context

Locus coeruleus input to hippocampal CA3 drives single-trial learning of a novel context

Adjunctive behaviors are operants

Brainstem involvement in the initial response to pain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About