Proximal threats promote enhanced acquisition and persistence of reactive fear-learning circuits

ID 182 1 Reuses

Abstract

Physical proximity to a traumatic event increases the severity of accompanying stress symptoms, an effect that is reminiscent of evolutionarily configured fear responses based on threat imminence. Despite being widely adopted as a model system for stress and anxiety disorders, fear-conditioning research has not yet characterized how threat proximity impacts the mechanisms of fear acquisition and extinction in the human brain. We used three-dimensional (3D) virtual reality technology to manipulate the egocentric distance of conspecific threats while healthy adult participants navigated virtual worlds during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Consistent with theoretical predictions, proximal threats enhanced fear acquisition by shifting conditioned learning from cognitive to reactive fear circuits in the brain and reducing amygdala–cortical connectivity during both fear acquisition and extinction. With an analysis of representational pattern similarity between the acquisition and extinction phases, we further demonstrate that proximal threats impaired extinction efficacy via persistent multivariate representations of conditioned learning in the cerebellum, which predicted susceptibility to later fear reinstatement. These results show that conditioned threats encountered in close proximity are more resistant to extinction learning and suggest that the canonical neural circuitry typically associated with fear learning requires additional consideration of a more reactive neural fear system to fully account for this effect.

Authors

Leonard Faul*, Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708 Daniel Stjepanović, Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708; Centre for Youth Substance Abuse Research, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia Joshua M. Stivers, Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708 Gregory W. Stewart, Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708 John L. Graner, Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708 Rajendra A. Morey, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710 Kevin S. LaBar, Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710

Year

2020

DOI of the Publication

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2004258117

Is Version of

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JM62Y

Location of Data Collection

Duke University, USA

How to Cite

Faul, L., Stewart, G., & LaBar, K. S. (2023, July 5). Proximal threats promote enhanced acquisition and persistence of reactive fear learning circuits. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JM62Y

Study Design

Contingency Instructions

Different instructions in different phases

Outcome Measures

habituation
2 different CS+
2 Trials
6000s
2 different CS-
2 Trials
6000s
acquisition
10 different CS+
10 Trials
Reinforcement Rate
50%
6000s
10 different CS-
10 Trials
6000s
extinction
10 different CS+
10 Trials
6000s
10 different CS-
10 Trials
6000s
1 days
re-extinction
10 different CS+
10 Trials
6000s
10 different CS-
10 Trials
6000s
reinstatement test
10 different CS+
10 Trials
6000s
10 different CS-
10 Trials
6000s

Participant Information

Participant Age

Participant Sex

Experimental Group

- Number of experimental groups: 1 (within-subject design) - Number of experimental conditions: 4 (CS+Near, CS+Far, CS−Near, CS−Far) - Independent variables: -- IV1: CS Type (CS+ [paired with US] vs. CS− [unpaired]) -- IV2: Distance (Near [0.6 m] vs. Far [3 m])

Stimuli

Drug Administration

No

Conditioning Protocol

Cue-Context-Conditioning

Instructions Regarding CS–US Contingencies

Different instructions in different phases

US scored separately

No

Number of Different US

1

US Modality

electrotactile

US Duration (ms)

6

Time Between CS and US Onset (ms)

Number of Different CS+

2

CS+ Duration (ms)

6000

CS+ 1: Reinforcement Rate (%)

50

CS+ 2: Reinforcement Rate (%)

50

CS+ 3: Reinforcement Rate (%)

Number of Different CS-

2

CS- Duration (ms)

6000

CS Modality

visual

Data Collected During MRI

Yes

Measures

skin conductance response

trialwise & untransformed

Amplitude of skin conductance response to stimulus.

US expectancy rating

US expectancy rating of the CS stimuli.