Stress resilience is mediated, in part, by our ability to predict and control threats within our environment. Therefore, determining the neural mechanisms that regulate the emotional response to predictable and controllable threat may provide important new insight into the processes that mediate resilience to emotional dysfunction and guide the future development of interventions for anxiety disorders. To better understand the effect of predictability and controllability on threat-related brain activity in humans, two groups of healthy volunteers participated in a yoked Pavlovian fear conditioning study during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Threat predictability was manipulated by presenting an aversive unconditioned stimulus (UCS) that was either preceded by a conditioned stimulus (i.e., predictable) or by presenting the UCS alone (i.e., unpredictable). Similar to animal model research that has employed yoked fear conditioning procedures, one group (Controllable Condition; CC), but not the other group (Uncontrollable Condition; UC) was able to terminate the UCS. The fMRI signal response within the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (PFC), dorsomedial PFC, ventromedial PFC, and posterior cingulate was diminished during predictable compared to unpredictable threat (i.e., UCS). In addition, threat-related activity within the ventromedial PFC and bilateral hippocampus was diminished only to threats that were both predictable and controllable. These findings provide insight into how threat predictability and controllability affects the activity of brain regions (i.e., ventromedial PFC and hippocampus) involved in emotion regulation, and may have important implications for better understanding neural processes that mediate emotional resilience to stress.

Extinction of Pavlovian conditioned fear in humans is a popular paradigm often used to study learning and memory processes that mediate anxiety-related disorders. Fear extinction studies often only pair the conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (UCS) on a subset of acquisition trials (i.e., partial reinforcement/pairing) to prolong extinction (i.e., partial reinforcement extinction effect; PREE) and provide more time to study the process. However, there is limited evidence that the partial pairing procedures typically used during fear conditioning actually extend the extinction process, while there is strong evidence these procedures weaken conditioned response (CR) acquisition. Therefore, determining conditioning procedures that support strong CR acquisition and that also prolong the extinction process would benefit the field. The present study investigated 4 separate CS-UCS pairing procedures to determine methods that support strong conditioning and that also exhibit a PREE. One group (C-C) of participants received continuous CS-UCS pairings; a second group (C-P) received continuous followed by partial CS-UCS pairings; a third group (P-C) received partial followed by continuous CS-UCS pairings; and a fourth group (P-P) received partial CS-UCS pairings during acquisition. A strong skin conductance CR was expressed by C-C and P-C groups but not by C-P and P-P groups at the end of the acquisition phase. The P-C group maintained the CR during extinction. In contrast, the CR extinguished quickly within the C-C group. These findings suggest that partial followed by continuous CS-UCS pairings elicit strong CRs and prolong the extinction process following human fear conditioning.