4.6 Article

Resting Amygdala and Medial Prefrontal Metabolism Predicts Functional Activation of the Fear Extinction Circuit

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
卷 169, 期 4, 页码 415-423

出版社

AMER PSYCHIATRIC PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.10121780

关键词

-

资金

  1. MicroTransponder, Inc.
  2. NIH [K01 MH080346, R01 MH081975]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Individual differences in a person's ability to control fear have been linked to activation in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, and the amygdala. This study investigated whether functional variance in this network can be predicted by resting metabolism in these same regions. Method: The authors measured resting brain metabolism in healthy volunteers with positron emission tomography using [F-18]fluorodeoxyglucose. This was followed by a 2-day fear conditioning and extinction training paradigm using functional MRI to measure brain activation during fear extinction and recall. The authors used skin conductance response to index conditioned responding, and they used resting metabolism in the amygdala, the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex to predict responses during fear extinction and extinction recall. Results: During extinction training, resting amygdala metabolism positively predicted activation in the ventromeclial prefrontal cortex and negatively predicted activation in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex. In contrast, during extinction recall, resting amygdala metabolism negatively predicted activation in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and positively predicted activation in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex. In addition, resting metabolism in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex predicted fear expression (as measured by skin conductance response) during extinction recall. Conclusions: Resting brain metabolism predicted neuronal reactivity and skin conductance changes associated with the recall of the fear extinction memory.

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

4.6
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