Article

Human Fear Conditioning and Extinction in Neuroimaging: A Systematic Review

Department of Psychiatry, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
PLoS ONE (Impact Factor: 3.53). 02/2009; 4(6):e5865. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005865
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Fear conditioning and extinction are basic forms of associative learning that have gained considerable clinical relevance in enhancing our understanding of anxiety disorders and facilitating their treatment. Modern neuroimaging techniques have significantly aided the identification of anatomical structures and networks involved in fear conditioning. On closer inspection, there is considerable variation in methodology and results between studies. This systematic review provides an overview of the current neuroimaging literature on fear conditioning and extinction on healthy subjects, taking into account methodological issues such as the conditioning paradigm. A Pubmed search, as of December 2008, was performed and supplemented by manual searches of bibliographies of key articles. Two independent reviewers made the final study selection and data extraction. A total of 46 studies on cued fear conditioning and/or extinction on healthy volunteers using positron emission tomography or functional magnetic resonance imaging were reviewed. The influence of specific experimental factors, such as contingency and timing parameters, assessment of conditioned responses, and characteristics of conditioned and unconditioned stimuli, on cerebral activation patterns was examined. Results were summarized descriptively. A network consisting of fear-related brain areas, such as amygdala, insula, and anterior cingulate cortex, is activated independently of design parameters. However, some neuroimaging studies do not report these findings in the presence of methodological heterogeneities. Furthermore, other brain areas are differentially activated, depending on specific design parameters. These include stronger hippocampal activation in trace conditioning and tactile stimulation. Furthermore, tactile unconditioned stimuli enhance activation of pain related, motor, and somatosensory areas. Differences concerning experimental factors may partly explain the variance between neuroimaging investigations on human fear conditioning and extinction and should, therefore, be taken into serious consideration in the planning and the interpretation of research projects.

Full-text

Available from: Pienie Zwitserlood, Jun 09, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
195 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Variability in fear conditionability is common, and clarity regarding the neural regions responsible for individual differences in fear conditionability could uncover brain-based biomarkers of resilience or vulnerability to trauma-based psychopathologies (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder). In recent years, neuroimaging work has yielded a detailed understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying fear conditioning common across participants, however only a minority of studies have investigated the brain basis of inter-individual variation in fear learning. Moreover, the majority of these studies have employed small sample sizes (mean n=17; range n=5-27) and all have failed to meet the minimum recommended sample size for functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies of individual differences. Here, using fMRI, we analyzed blood-oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) response recorded simultaneously with skin conductance response (SCR) and ratings of unconditioned stimulus (US) expectancy in 49 participants undergoing Pavlovian fear conditioning. On average, participants became conditioned to the conditioned stimulus (CS+; higher US expectancy ratings and SCR for the CS+ compared to the unpaired conditioned stimulus, CS-); the CS+ also robustly increased activation in the bilateral insula. Amygdala activation was revealed from a regression analysis that incorporated individual differences in fear conditionability (i.e., a between-subjects regressor of mean CS+>CS- SCR). By replicating results observed using much smaller sample sizes, the results confirm that variation in amygdala reactivity covaries with individual differences in fear conditionability. The link between behavior (SCR) and brain (amygdala reactivity) may be a putative endophenotype for the acquisition of fear memories. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier B.V.
    Behavioural brain research 03/2015; 287. DOI:10.1016/j.bbr.2015.03.035 · 3.39 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Previous research suggests disturbed emotional learning and memory in borderline personality disorder (BPD). Studies investigating the neural correlates of aversive differential delay conditioning in BPD are currently lacking. We aimed to investigate acquisition, within-session extinction, between-session extinction recall, and reacquisition. We expected increased activation in the insula, amygdala, and anterior cingulate, and decreased prefrontal activation in BPD patients. During functional magnetic resonance imaging, 27 medication-free female BPD patients and 26 female healthy controls (HC) performed a differential delay aversive conditioning paradigm. An electric shock served as unconditioned stimulus, two neutral pictures as conditioned stimuli (CS+/CS-). Dependent variables were blood-oxygen-level-dependent response, skin conductance response (SCR), and subjective ratings (valence, arousal). No significant between-group differences in brain activation were found [all p(FDR) > 0.05]. Within-group comparisons for CS+unpaired > CS- revealed increased insula activity in BPD patients but not in HC during early acquisition; during late acquisition, both groups recruited fronto-parietal areas [p(FDR) < 0.05]. During extinction, BPD patients rated both CS+ and CS- as significantly more arousing and aversive than HC and activated the amygdala in response to CS+. In contrast, HC showed increased prefrontal activity in response to CS+ > CS during extinction. During extinction recall, there was a trend for stronger SCR to CS+ > CS in BPD patients. Amygdala habituation to CS+paired (CS+ in temporal contingency with the aversive event) during acquisition was found in HC but not in patients. Our findings suggest altered temporal response patterns in terms of increased vigilance already during early acquisition and delayed extinction processes in individuals with BPD.
    European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience 03/2015; DOI:10.1007/s00406-015-0593-1 · 3.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Contextual fear conditioning studies in animals and humans found an involvement of the hippocampus and amygdala during fear learning. To exclude a focus on elements of the context we employed a paradigm, which uses two feature-identical contexts that only differ in the arrangement of the features and requires configural processing. We employed functional magnetic resonance imaging to determine the role of the hippocampus and neocortical areas during the acquisition of contextual fear in humans. For contextual fear acquisition, we paired one context (CS+) with an aversive electrical stimulus, whereas the other (CS-) was never followed by aversive stimulation. Blood oxygen level dependent activation to the CS+ was present in the insula, inferior frontal gyrus, inferior parietal lobule, superior medial gyrus and caudate nucleus. Furthermore, the amygdala and hippocampus were involved in a time-dependent manner. Psychophysiological interaction analyses revealed functional connectivity of a more posterior hippocampal seed region with the anterior hippocampus, posterior cingulate cortex and superior parietal lobule. The anterior hippocampus was functionally coupled with the amygdala and postcentral gyrus. This study complements previous findings in contextual fear conditioning in humans and provides a paradigm which might be useful for studying patients with hippocampal impairment. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 03/2015; 62. DOI:10.1016/j.nlm.2015.03.001 · 4.04 Impact Factor