4.7 Article

Contextual fear conditioning in humans: Cortical-hippocampal and amygdala contributions

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 28, 期 24, 页码 6211-6219

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1246-08.2008

关键词

classical conditioning; pavlovian conditioning; context conditioning; fMRI; psychophysiology; anxiety

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [Z99 MH999999] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Functional imaging studies of cued fear conditioning in humans have mostly confirmed findings in animals, but it is unclear whether the brain mechanisms that underlie contextual fear conditioning in animals are also preserved in humans. We investigated this issue using functional magnetic resonance imaging and virtual reality contexts. Subjects underwent differential context conditioning in which they were repeatedly exposed to two contexts (CXT+ and CXT-) in semirandom order, with contexts counterbalanced across participants. An unsignaled footshock was consistently paired with the CXT+, and no shock was ever delivered in the CXT-. Evidence for context conditioning was established using skin conductance and anxiety ratings. Consistent with animal models centrally implicating the hippocampus and amygdala in a network supporting context conditioning, CXT+ compared with CXT-significantly activated right anterior hippocampus and bilateral amygdala. In addition, context conditioning was associated with activation in posterior orbitofrontal cortex, medial dorsal thalamus, anterior insula, subgenual anterior cingulate, and parahippocampal, inferior frontal, and parietal cortices. Structural equation modeling was used to assess interactions among the core brain regions mediating context conditioning. The derived model indicated that medial amygdala was the source of key efferent and afferent connections including input from orbitofrontal cortex. These results provide evidence that similar brain mechanisms may underlie contextual fear conditioning across species.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据