Mammalian associative learning is organized into separate anatomically defined functional systems. We illustrate the organization of two of these systems, Pavlovian fear conditioning and Pavlovian eyeblink conditioning, by describing studies using mutant mice, brain stimulation and recording, brain lesions and direct pharmacological manipulations of specific brain regions. The amygdala serves as the neuroanatomical hub of the former, whereas the cerebellum is the hub of the latter. Pathways that carry information about signals for biologically important events arrive at these hubs by circuitry that depends on stimulus modality and complexity. Within the amygdala and cerebellum, neural plasticity occurs because of convergence of these stimuli and the biologically important information they predict. This neural plasticity is the physical basis of associative memory formation, and although the intracellular mechanisms of plasticity within these structures share some similarities, they differ significantly. The last Annual Review of Psychology article to specifically tackle the question of mammalian associative learning ( Lavond et al. 1993 ) persuasively argued that identifiable "essential" circuits encode memories formed during associative learning. The next dozen years saw breathtaking progress not only in detailing those essential circuits but also in identifying the essential processes occurring at the synapses (e.g., Bi & Poo 2001, Martinez & Derrick 1996 ) and within the neurons (e.g., Malinow & Malenka 2002, Murthy & De Camilli 2003 ) that make up those circuits. In this chapter, we describe the orientation that the neuroscience of learning has taken and review some of the progress made within that orientation.

Background Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI; cerebral concussion) results in cognitive and emotional dysfunction. These injuries are a significant risk factor for the development of anxiety disorders including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, because physically traumatic events typically occur in a highly emotional context, it is unknown whether TBI itself is a cause of augmented fear and anxiety. Methods Rats were trained with one of five fear conditioning procedures (N = 105) two days after concussive brain trauma. Fear learning was assessed over subsequent days and chronic changes in fear learning and memory circuitry were assessed by measuring NMDA receptor subunits and GAD-67 protein levels in the hippocampus and basolateral amygdala complex (BLA). Results Injured rats exhibited an overall increase in fear conditioning regardless of whether fear was retrieved via discrete or contextual-spatial stimuli. Moreover, injured rats appeared to over generalize learned fear to both conditioned and novel stimuli. Although no gross histopathology was evident, injury resulted in a significant up-regulation of excitatory NMDA receptors in the BLA. There was a trend toward decreased GABA related inhibition (GAD-67) in the BLA and hippocampus. Conclusions These results suggest that mTBI predisposes the brain toward heightened fear learning during stressful post-injury events and provides a potential molecular mechanism by which this occurs. Furthermore, these data represent a novel rodent model that can help advance the neurobiological and therapeutic understanding of the co-morbidity of PTSD and TBI.

The basolateral amygdala (BLA), consisting of the lateral and basal nuclei, is considered to be essential for fear learning. Using a temporary inactivation technique, we found that rats could acquire a context-specific long-term fear memory without the BLA but only if intensive overtraining was used. BLA-inactivated rats' learning curves were characterized by slow learning that eventually achieved the same asymptotic performance as rats with the BLA functional. BLA inactivation abolished expression of overtrained fear when rats were overtrained with a functional BLA. However, BLA-inactivation had no effect on the expression of fear in rats that learned while the BLA was inactivated. These data suggest that there are primary and alternate pathways capable of mediating fear. Normally, learning is dominated by the more efficient primary pathway, which prevents learning in the alternate pathway. However, alternate pathways compensate when the dominant pathway is compromised.

It is well established that the cerebellum and its associated circuitry are essential for classical conditioning of the eyeblink response and other discrete motor responses (e.g., limb flexion, head turn, etc.) learned with an aversive unconditioned stimulus (US). However, brain mechanisms underlying extinction of these responses are still relatively unclear. Behavioral studies have demonstrated extinction as an active learning process distinct from acquisition. Experimental data in eyeblink conditioning suggest that plastic changes specific to extinction may play an important role in this process. Both cerebellar and hippocampal systems may be involved in extinction of these memories. The nature of this phenomenon and identification of the neural substrates necessary for extinction of originally learned responses is the topic of this review.

Extinction is the primary mode for the treatment of anxiety disorders. However, extinction memories are prone to relapse. For example, fear is likely to return when a prolonged time period intervenes between extinction and a subsequent encounter with the fear-provoking stimulus (spontaneous recovery). Therefore there is considerable interest in the development of procedures that strengthen extinction and to prevent such recovery of fear. We contrasted two procedures in rats that have been reported to cause such deepened extinction. One where extinction begins before the initial consolidation of fear memory begins (immediate extinction) and another where extinction begins after a brief exposure to the consolidated fear stimulus. The latter is thought to open a period of memory vulnerability similar to that which occurs during initial consolidation (reconsolidation update). We also included a standard extinction treatment and a control procedure that reversed the brief exposure and extinction phases. Spontaneous recovery was only found with the standard extinction treatment. In a separate experiment we tested fear shortly after extinction (i.e., within 6 h). All extinction procedures, except reconsolidation update reduced fear at this short-term test. The findings suggest that strengthened extinction can result from alteration in both retrieval and consolidation processes.