4.7 Article

Contributions of the Central Extended Amygdala to Fear and Anxiety

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 36, Issue 31, Pages 8050-8063

Publisher

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0982-16.2016

Keywords

affective neuroscience; fear and anxiety; fMRI; mood and anxiety disorders; neuroimaging; nonhuman primates

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institute of Mental Health [MH107444]
  2. University of California
  3. University of Maryland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It is widely thought that phasic and sustained responses to threat reflect dissociable circuits centered on the central nucleus of the amygdala (Ce) and the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BST), the two major subdivisions of the central extended amygdala. Early versions of this hypothesis remain highly influential and have been incorporated into the National Institute of Mental Health Research Research Domain Criteria framework. However, new observations encourage a different perspective. Anatomical studies show that the Ce and BST form a tightly interconnected unit, where different kinds of threat-relevant information can be integrated and used to assemble states of fear and anxiety. Imaging studies in humans and monkeys show that the Ce and BST exhibit similar functional profiles. Both regions are sensitive to a range of aversive challenges, including uncertain or temporally remote threat; both covary with concurrent signs and symptoms of fear and anxiety; both show phasic responses to short-lived threat; and both show heightened activity during sustained exposure to diffusely threatening contexts. Mechanistic studies demonstrate that both regions can control the expression of fear and anxiety during sustained exposure to diffuse threat. These observations compel a reconsideration of the central extended amygdala's contributions to fear and anxiety and its role in neuropsychiatric disease.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available