Phase-Synchronized Stimulus Presentation Augments Contingency Knowledge and Affective Evaluation in a Fear-Conditioning Task.

Throughout the animal kingdom, the inhibitory neurotransmitter γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) is a key modulator of physiological processes including learning. With respect to associative learning, the exact time in which GABA interferes with the molecular events of learning has not yet been clearly defined. To address this issue, we used two different approaches to activate GABA receptors during appetitive olfactory conditioning in the honeybee. Injection of GABA-A receptor agonist muscimol 20 min before but not 20 min after associative conditioning affects memory performance. These memory deficits were attenuated by additional training sessions. Muscimol has no effect on sensory perception, odor generalization, and nonassociative learning, indicating a specific role of GABA during associative conditioning. We used photolytic uncaging of GABA to identify the GABA-sensitive time window during the short pairing of the conditioned stimulus (CS) and the unconditioned stimulus (US) that lasts only seconds. Either uncaging of GABA in the antennal lobes or the mushroom bodies during the CS presentation of the CS-US pairing impairs memory formation, while uncaging GABA during the US phase has no effect on memory. Uncaging GABA during the CS presentation in memory retrieval also has no effect. Thus, in honeybee appetitive olfactory learning GABA specifically interferes with the integration of CS and US during associative conditioning and exerts a modulatory role in memory formation depending on the training strength.

Associative learning and latent inhibition in a conditioned suppression paradigm in humans

Four experiments used rats to study the role of the basolateral amygdala (BLA) in the reinstatement and extinction of fear responses (freezing) to a previously extinguished conditioned stimulus (CS). In Experiment 1, BLA inactivation before pairing the extinguished CS with the shock unconditioned stimulus (US) or before US-alone exposure impaired the restoration and the reinstatement of fear responses to the extinguished CS. In Experiment 2, BLA inactivation before extinction impaired long-term inhibition of fear responses, but its inactivation before extinction of fear responses restored by CS-US pairing did not impair long-term inhibition. In Experiment 3, BLA inactivation before extinction of fear responses or before the extinction of fear responses reinstated by US-alone exposure impaired long-term inhibition. In Experiment 4, BLA inactivation did not impair long-term inhibition of fear responses reinstated by US-alone exposure if the context where the US-alone exposure occurred had been previously extinguished. These results confirm that the BLA is critical for both learning fear and fear inhibition, but not for relearning this inhibition. The results are consistent with the view that reinstatement is due to the extinguished CS being tested in a dangerous context and are discussed in terms of a contemporary neural model of fear inhibition.

Spaced taste avoidance conditioning in Lymnaea

In this study, the role of mRNA synthesis in the amygdala was studied during the acquisition of conditional fear. Rats with cannulas placed in the basolateral region of the amygdala were trained with a series of noise-shock pairings in a distinctive observation chamber. One half of the rats were pretreated with the mRNA synthesis inhibitor actinomycin-D (act-D). Responding to the training context and the auditory stimulus in a novel context measured by defensive freezing was assessed. Pretreatment with act-D significantly attenuated fear responses to both stimuli. Animals receiving act-D injections exhibited normal reactions to the conditioned stimulus-unconditioned stimulus pairings in the initial training session and displayed normal learning when retrained 7 days after injections. These results indicate that the transcription of new mRNA and subsequent protein synthesis in the amygdala may be essential for neural plasticity during this form of associative learning.

Extinguishing a conditioned response (CR) has entailed separating the conditioned stimulus (CS) from the unconditioned stimulus (US). This research reveals that elimination of the rabbit nictitating membrane response occurred during continuous CS-US pairings. Initial training contained a mixture of 2 CS-US interstimulus intervals (ISIs), 150 ms and 500 ms. The CRs showed double peaks, one for each ISI. When the 150-ms ISI was removed, its CR peak showed 2 hallmarks of extinction: a decline across sessions and spontaneous recovery between sessions. When a further stage of training was introduced with a distinctive CS using the 150-ms ISI, occasional tests of the original, extinguished CS revealed another hallmark of extinction, specifically, strong recovery of the 150-ms peak. These results support both abstract and cerebellar models of conditioning that encode the CS into a cascade of microstimuli, while challenging theories of extinction that rely on changes in CS processing, US representations, and contextual control.

Pavlovian autoshaping procedures increase plasma corticosterone and levels of norepinephrine and serotonin in prefrontal cortex in rats

BackgroundPavlovian fear conditioning is a form of learning accomplished by associating a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an unconditioned stimulus (US). While CS–US associations are generally thought to occur in the amygdala, the pathway mediating US signal processing has only been partially identified. The external part of the pontine lateral parabrachial nucleus (elPB) is well situated for providing US nociceptive information to the central amygdala (CeA), which was recently revealed to play a primary role in fear acquisition. Therefore, we manipulated the elPB activity to examine its role in the regulation of fear learning.ResultsFirst, we transiently inactivate the elPB during the acquisition of fear memory. Mice received bilateral elPB injections of the GABAA agonist muscimol (MUS) or phosphate-buffered saline (drug control), with bilateral misplacement of MUS defined as a placement control group. After the injection, mice were conditioned with a pure tone and foot-shock. On a memory retrieval test on day 2, the freezing ratio was significantly lower in the MUS group compared with that in the drug control or placement control groups. A second retrieval test using a pip tone on day 4 following de novo training on day 3, resulted in significant freezing with no group differences, indicating integrity of fear learning and a temporary limited effect of MUS. Next, we examined whether selectively activating the elPB-CeC pathway is sufficient to induce fear learning when paired with CS. Mice with channelrhodopsin2 (ChR2) expressed in the elPB received a pure tone (CS) in association with optical stimulation in the CeA (CS-LED paired group). On the retrieval test, CS-LED paired mice exhibited significantly higher freezing ratios evoked by CS presentation compared with both control mice receiving optical stimulation immediately after being placed in the shock chamber and exposed to the CS much later (immediate shock group) and those expressing only GFP (GFP control group). These results suggest that selective stimulation of the elPB-CeC pathway substitutes for the US to induce fear learning.ConclusionsThe elPB activity is necessary and sufficient to trigger fear learning, likely as a part of the pathway transmitting aversive signals to the CeA.

Classical fear conditioning involves pairing a neutral conditional stimulus (CS) with an aversive unconditional stimulus (US). Subsequent presentation of the CS alone induces fear responses. Acquisition of conditioned fear is thought to involve learning of the CS/US association, followed by memory consolidation. Recently we reported that the N1/P2 auditory evoked potential was enhanced by fear conditioning in humans. Diazepam 10 mg, given before CS/US pairing, prevented subsequent expression of fear potentiation when the response was elicited, 1 week later, in the presence of the CS. In this experiment, we examined whether this effect of diazepam was caused by disruption of the formation of CS/US associations or by disruption of consolidation. The benzodiazepine antagonist flumazenil was used to block the effect of diazepam either during the association period or during subsequent consolidation. Forty-two male volunteers (18-35 years) participated in two sessions separated by 7 days. In Session One, they ingested diazepam 10 mg or placebo: 60 minutes later they received flumazenil 1 mg or saline intravenously (i.v.). Then they received 20 presentations of a light (CS), 50% of which terminated with electric shock (US). This was followed by a second infusion of flumazenil or saline. Subjects received placebo/saline/saline (Group 1), diazepam/saline/saline (Group 2), diazepam/flumazenil/saline (Group 3) and diazepam/saline/flumazenil (Group 4). In Session Two, the CS was presented without the US; 50% of CS presentations terminated with a sound pulse; an equal number of sound pulses were presented without the CS. Auditory evoked potentials were recorded at Cz. In Session Two, CS presentation enhanced the auditory N1/P2 potential in placebo-treated subjects (Group 1). This enhancement was prevented by diazepam (Group 2). Flumazenil reversed diazepam's effect on fear potentiation if it was administered before conditioning (Group 3), but not if it was administered afterwards (Group 4). The results confirm that diazepam prevents the acquisition of fear conditioning in humans, and suggest that it disrupts the formation of CS/US associations, rather than the consolidation of fear memory.

Interval Timing in Aversive Conditioning: Neural Correlates in Amygdala and Related Networks in Rats

Previous functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies with human subjects have explored the neural substrates involved in forming associations in Pavlovian fear conditioning. Most of these studies used delay procedures, in which the conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (UCS) coterminate. Less is known about brain regions that support trace conditioning, a procedure in which an interval of time (trace interval) elapses between CS termination and UCS onset. Previous work suggests significant overlap in the neural circuitry supporting delay and trace fear conditioning, although trace conditioning requires recruitment of additional brain regions. In the present event-related fMRI study, skin conductance and continuous measures of UCS expectancy were recorded concurrently with whole-brain blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) imaging during direct comparison of delay and trace discrimination learning. Significant activation was observed within the visual cortex for all CSs. Anterior cingulate and medial thalamic activity reflected associative learning common to both delay and trace procedures. Activations within the supplementary motor area (SMA), frontal operculum, middle frontal gyri, and inferior parietal lobule were specifically associated with trace interval processing. The hippocampus displayed BOLD signal increases early in training during all conditions; however, differences were observed in hippocampal response magnitude related to the accuracy of predicting UCS presentations. These results demonstrate overlapping patterns of activation within the anterior cingulate, medial thalamus, and visual cortex during delay and trace procedures, with additional recruitment of the hippocampus, SMA, frontal operculum, middle frontal gyrus, and inferior parietal lobule during trace conditioning. These data suggest that the hippocampus codes temporal information during trace conditioning, whereas brain regions supporting working memory processes maintain the CS-UCS representation during the trace interval.

We examined whether the inhibitory Conditional Stimulus (CS)-no Unconditional Stimulus (US) association formed during extinction can be triggered by a novel US during the reinstatement of conditional electrodermal responding and self-reported CS valence in human differential fear conditioning. Participants were trained with either a shock or an aversive scream US before undergoing extinction. Participants then received either the same (i.e., shock_shock or scream_scream) or a different US during reinstatement (i.e., shock_scream, scream_shock). Differential conditioning across all indices was stronger when a shock US was used during acquisition. After reinstatement, electrodermal responding to both the CS+ and the CS- increased regardless of the type of US used during reinstatement (non-differential reinstatement). Differential CS valence evaluations were larger after reinstatement in the groups that received the same US during acquisition and reinstatement (differential reinstatement), but differential evaluations did not increase in the groups receiving a different US at reinstatement. This dissociation suggests that the reinstatement of negative stimulus valence and the reinstatement of expectancy learning may differ.

Fear learning allows us to identify and anticipate aversive events and adapt our behavior accordingly. This is often thought to rely on associative learning mechanisms where an initially neutral conditioned stimulus (CS) is repeatedly paired with an aversive unconditioned stimulus (US), eventually leading to the CS also being perceived as aversive and threatening. Importantly, however, humans also show verbal fear learning. Namely, they have the ability to change their responses to stimuli rapidly through verbal instructions about CS-US pairings. Past research on the link between experience-based and verbal fear learning indicated that verbal instructions about a reversal of CS-US pairings can fully override the effects of previously experienced CS-US pairings, as measured through fear ratings, skin conductance, and fear-potentiated startle. However, it remains an open question whether such instructions can also annul learned CS representations in the brain. Here, we used a fear reversal paradigm (female and male participants) in conjunction with representational similarity analysis of fMRI data to test whether verbal instructions fully override the effects of experienced CS-US pairings in fear-related brain regions or not. Previous research suggests that only the right amygdala should show lingering representations of previously experienced threat ("pavlovian trace"). Unexpectedly, we found evidence for the residual effect of prior CS-US experience to be much more widespread than anticipated, in the amygdala but also cortical regions like the dorsal anterior cingulate or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. This finding shines a new light on the interaction of different fear learning mechanisms, at times with unexpected consequences.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Humans are able to learn about aversive stimuli both from experience (i.e., repeated pairings of conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (US; pavlovian conditioning), and from verbal instructions about stimulus pairings. Understanding how experience-based and verbal learning processes interact is key for understanding the cognitive and neural underpinnings of fear learning. We tested whether prior aversive experiences (CS-US pairings) affected subsequent verbal learning, searching for lingering threat signals after verbal instructions reversed a CS from being threatening to being safe. While past research suggested such threat signals can only be found in the amygdala, we found evidence to be much more widespread, including the medial and lateral PFC. This highlights how experience-based and verbal learning processes interact to support adaptive behavior.

An automated learning apparatus for classical conditioning of Lymnaea stagnalis

Chronic schizophrenics under neuroleptic medication were compared with normals, matched for age and education, in two conditioning experiments. Both experiments employed a differential paradigm with long conditional stimulus--unconditional stimulus (CS-UCS) intervals. Skin resistance (SR) and finger pulse or heart rate (HR) were recorded. In Experiment 1, half of the subjects were trained in categorizing the to-be conditional stimuli. In a further step, half of the subjects were informed about the CS-UCS contingency. The UCS was an electric shock. Information improved discrimination of SR responses only of normals, and discrimination training had no effect at all on autonomic responses. In Experiment 2, only electrodermal responders were included. Each subject was tested in two sessions, using a loud tone as UCS in one, and a reaction time signal in the other. Again, half of the subjects wee informed about the contingency. Information improved discrimination of SR responses of both diagnostic groups. Decelerations of HR following CS onset showed informed schizophrenics to discriminate better with the loud tone UCS than with the reaction time signal. General autonomic responsivity seems to determine not only discriminative conditioning of schizophrenic patients but also the reports of awareness and the effects of manipulations of awareness. However, when subjects are matched for electrodermal responsivity and are equivalent in terms of SR response conditioning, patients react to information about the contingency with enhanced HR deceleration to the CSs, possibly reflecting a heightened sensitivity of the cardiovascular system.