Predicting danger: the nature, consequences, and neural mechanisms of predictive fear learning - PubMed (original) (raw)

Review

Predicting danger: the nature, consequences, and neural mechanisms of predictive fear learning

Gavan P McNally et al. Learn Mem. 2006 May-Jun.

Abstract

The ability to detect and learn about the predictive relations existing between events in the world is essential for adaptive behavior. It allows us to use past events to predict the future and to adjust our behavior accordingly. Pavlovian fear conditioning allows anticipation of sources of danger in the environment. It guides attention away from poorer predictors toward better predictors of danger and elicits defensive behavior appropriate to these threats. This article reviews the differences between learning about predictive relations and learning about contiguous relations in Pavlovian fear conditioning. It then describes behavioral approaches to the study of these differences and to the examination of subtle variations in the nature and consequences of predictive learning. Finally, it reviews recent data from rodent and human studies that have begun to identify the neural mechanisms for direct and indirect predictive fear learning.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Prevention of blocking by infusions of the μ-opioid receptor antagonist CTAP into the vlPAG prior to stage 2 training. (Reprinted with permission from the American Psychological Association, © 2006, McNally and Cole [2006]).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

(A) Prevention of blocking by infusions of the μ-opioid receptor agonist DAMGO, and prevention of unblocking by the μ-opioid receptor antagonist CTAP, upon infusion into the Acb prior to stage 2 training. Infusions of a δ-opioid receptor agonist (DPDPE) or antagonist (Nalt [Naltrindole]) were without effect. (B) μ-opioid receptors in the Acb regulate indirect predictive fear learning. Infusions of a μ-opioid receptor agonist prior to the first (morphine–saline) stage 2 trial prevents blocking, whereas infusion prior to the second trial (saline–saline) does not. (Reprinted with permission from The Society for Neuroscience © 2006, Iordanova et al. [2006b]).

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Roles of the ventral striatum and midbrain in predicting danger.

References

    1. Bakal C.W., Johnson R.D., Rescorla R.A. The effect of change in US quality on the blocking effect. Pavlov. J. Biol. Sci. 1974;9:97–103. - PubMed
    1. Bauer E.P., LeDoux J.E., Nader K. Fear conditioning and LTP in the lateral amygdala are sensitive to the same stimulus contingencies. Nat. Neurosci. 2001;4:687–688. - PubMed
    1. Betts S.L., Brandon S.E., Wagner A.R. Dissociation of the blocking of conditioned eyeblink and conditioned fear following a shift in US locus. Anim. Learn. Behav. 1996;24:459–470.
    1. Biegler R., Morris R.G. Blocking in the spatial domain with arrays of discrete landmarks. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 1999;25:334–351. - PubMed
    1. Bolles R.C., Fanselow M.S. A perceptual-defensive-recuperative model of fear and pain. Behav. Brain Sci. 1980;3:291–323.

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources