Predicting danger: The nature, consequences, and neural mechanisms of predictive fear learning

Abstract

The ability to detect and learn about the predictive relations existing between events in the world is essential for adaptive behavior. It allows us to use past events to predict the future and to adjust our behavior accordingly. Pavlovian fear conditioning allows anticipation of sources of danger in the environment. It guides attention away from poorer predictors toward better predictors of danger and elicits defensive behavior appropriate to these threats. This article reviews the differences between learning about predictive relations and learning about contiguous relations in Pavlovian fear conditioning. It then describes behavioral approaches to the study of these differences and to the examination of subtle variations in the nature and consequences of predictive learning. Finally, it reviews recent data from rodent and human studies that have begun to identify the neural mechanisms for direct and indirect predictive fear learning.The ability to detect and learn about predictive relations existing between events in the world is essential for adaptive behavior. Such learning allows us to use past events to predict the future and to adjust our behavior accordingly. Learning about predictive relations depends on what is already known about the events in the relation: If an outcome is unexpected, we learn about cues that predict its occurrence; if the outcome is already expected, information provided by other cues about its occurrence is redundant and our learning about them is impaired. Pavlovian fear conditioning enables learning about, and adaptive responding to, sources of danger in the environment. It involves encoding the predictive relation between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an aversive unconditioned stimulus (US) stimulus. In this way Pavlovian fear conditioning allows anticipation of sources of danger in the environment. It guides attention away from poorer predictors toward better predictors of danger, and it elicits defensive behavior appropriate to these threats.A wealth of data accumulated over the past Ն20 years has provided significant insights into the neurobiological mechanisms underlying the formation of fear memories in the mammalian brain. These data support the view that the amygdala is essential for encoding, storing, and retrieving fear memories. In contrast to this knowledge of the brain mechanisms for storage of fear memories, the brain mechanisms for predicting danger are only just beginning to be understood. This article begins by reviewing the differences between learning about predictive relations and learning about contiguous relations in Pavlovian fear conditioning. It then describes some behavioral designs that permit differentiation between the neural mechanisms for predictive versus contiguity learning and also permit examination of the nature and consequences of predictive learning. Finally, it considers recent data from rodent and human experiments that reveal the brain mechanisms for predicting danger. Predicting danger: More than just contiguous relations Contingency v...

Aversive conditioning in honey bees (Apis mellifera anatolica): a comparison of drones and workers

“…Negative associations have been shown to be an important component with regards to resource patch visitation and signaling by honey bee workers (McNally and Westbrook, 2006;Abramson et al, 2006;Nieh, 2010). Similarities can be drawn between the importance of resource patches for workers and mating congregation sites for drones.…”

From Fear to Safety and Back: Reversal of Fear in the Human Brain

“…The present finding adds to the growing body of evidence supporting the role of this structure in temporal difference prediction error for aversive outcomes as well (Ploghous et al, 2000;Seymour et al, 2004;Jensen et al, 2007;Menon et al, 2007). Although striatal activation has been observed in aversive learning paradigm in humans (LaBar et al, 1998;Ploghaus et al, 2000;Jensen et al, 2003Jensen et al, , 2007Phelps et al, 2004;Seymour et al, 2004;Menon et al, 2007), and animals (Horvitz 2000;Schoenbaum and Setlow, 2003;Pezze and Feldon, 2004), the role of this region in aversive learning is only beginning to be understood (McNally and Westbrook, 2006). The present study provides robust evidence for the role of the striatum in fear predictions and their associated errors, as well as in the flexible reversal of predictive fear learning.…”

Macromolecular synthesis, distributed synaptic plasticity, and fear conditioning

“…Helmstetter & Tershner, 1994). While there is considerable functional heterogeneity within the PAG and closely related regions of the midbrain, most current models view the vPAG primarily as an "output structure" or final common pathway for CR expression (but see McNally & Westbrook, 2006). Figure 1d shows the results of treating animals with ACT-D prior to the training session through unilateral cannulae in the vPAG (5 ng/μl).…”