4.8 Article

Striatal structure and function predict individual biases in learning to avoid pain

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1519829113

Keywords

avoidance learning; pain; individual differences; striatum; prediction errors

Funding

  1. Wellcome Trust's Cambridge-University College London Mental Health and Neurosciences Network Grant [095844/Z/11/Z]
  2. Wellcome Trust Investigator Award [098362/Z/12/Z]
  3. Gatsby Charitable Foundation
  4. Swiss National Science Foundation [151641]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pain is an elemental inducer of avoidance. Here, we demonstrate that people differ in how they learn to avoid pain, with some individuals refraining from actions that resulted in painful outcomes, whereas others favor actions that helped prevent pain. These individual biases were best explained by differences in learning from outcome prediction errors and were associated with distinct forms of striatal responses to painful outcomes. Specifically, striatal responses to pain were modulated in a manner consistent with an aversive prediction error in individuals who learned predominantly from pain, whereas in individuals who learned predominantly from success in preventing pain, modulation was consistent with an appetitive prediction error. In contrast, striatal responses to success in preventing pain were consistent with an appetitive prediction error in both groups. Furthermore, variation in striatal structure, encompassing the region where pain prediction errors were expressed, predicted participants' predominant mode of learning, suggesting the observed learning biases may reflect stable individual traits. These results reveal functional and structural neural components underlying individual differences in avoidance learning, which may be important contributors to psychiatric disorders involving pathological harm avoidance behavior.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available