4.7 Article

A meta-analysis of instructed fear studies: Implications for conscious appraisal of threat

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 49, 期 2, 页码 1760-1768

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.09.040

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [KA1623/3-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In classical Pavlovian fear conditioning, a neutral stimulus (conditioned stimulus, CS) comes to be evaluated as threatening due to its association with an aversive stimulus (unconditioned stimulus, UCS), and elicits fear. In a subtype of fear conditioning paradigms, called instructed fear or anticipatory anxiety, subjects are made aware of the CS-UCS association prior to actually experiencing it. Initial fear elicitation during this type of conditioning results from the negative evaluation of the CS as a consequence of CS-UCS contingency awareness. Prior reports have suggested that this conscious appraisal process is mediated by a variety of brain regions, including rostral dorsomedial prefrontal/dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dmPFC/dACC), lateral prefrontal cortex (IPFC), posterior cingulate, hippocampus/parahippocampus, and nucleus accumbens, but there is little overlap between results. We reasoned that a formal meta-analysis of existing instructed fear studies should help narrow down the search for conscious appraisal areas in fear conditioning to those consistently activated across studies. We found consistent activation in rostral dmPFC but not in the other candidate areas. These results allow for maintaining the theory that the rostral dmPFC is involved in conscious threat appraisal. We also report a meta-analysis of uninstructed (classical) fear conditioning studies in which we found notable activation in more posterior parts of the dmPFC/dACC that overlapped with some of the instructed fear activations. These data suggest that mid regions of the dmPFC/dACC are part of a core fear network that is activated irrespective of how fear was learnt. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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