Fear conditioning is associated with dynamic directed functional interactions between and within the human amygdala, hippocampus, and frontal lobe

C. C. Liu, Nathan E Crone, P. J. Franaszczuk, D. T. Cheng, David Schretlen, Frederick Lenz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The current model of fear conditioning suggests that it is mediated through modules involving the amygdala (AMY), hippocampus (HIP), and frontal lobe (FL). We now test the hypothesis that habituation and acquisition stages of a fear conditioning protocol are characterized by different event-related causal interactions (ERCs) within and between these modules. The protocol used the painful cutaneous laser as the unconditioned stimulus and ERC was estimated by analysis of local field potentials recorded through electrodes implanted for investigation of epilepsy. During the prestimulus interval of the habituation stage FL>AMY ERC interactions were common. For comparison, in the poststimulus interval of the habituation stage, only a subdivision of the FL (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, dlPFC) still exerted the FL>AMY ERC interaction (dlFC>AMY). For a further comparison, during the poststimulus interval of the acquisition stage, the dlPFC>AMY interaction persisted and an AMY>FL interaction appeared. In addition to these ERC interactions between modules, the results also show ERC interactions within modules. During the poststimulus interval, HIP>HIP ERC interactions were more common during acquisition, and deep hippocampal contacts exerted causal interactions on superficial contacts, possibly explained by connectivity between the perihippocampal gyrus and the HIP. During the prestimulus interval of the habituation stage, AMY>AMY ERC interactions were commonly found, while interactions between the deep and superficial AMY (indirect pathway) were independent of intervals and stages. These results suggest that the network subserving fear includes distributed or widespread modules, some of which are themselves "local networks." ERC interactions between and within modules can be either static or change dynamically across intervals or stages of fear conditioning.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)359-369
Number of pages11
JournalNeuroscience
Volume189
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 25 2011

Fingerprint

Frontal Lobe
Amygdala
Fear
Hippocampus
Prefrontal Cortex
Conditioning (Psychology)
Parahippocampal Gyrus
Implanted Electrodes
Epilepsy
Lasers
Skin

Keywords

  • Fear
  • Human
  • Laser
  • Local field potentials
  • Network
  • Pain

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neuroscience(all)

Cite this

@article{88f5bb6486de415e8ed2581fa6c44a9e,
title = "Fear conditioning is associated with dynamic directed functional interactions between and within the human amygdala, hippocampus, and frontal lobe",
abstract = "The current model of fear conditioning suggests that it is mediated through modules involving the amygdala (AMY), hippocampus (HIP), and frontal lobe (FL). We now test the hypothesis that habituation and acquisition stages of a fear conditioning protocol are characterized by different event-related causal interactions (ERCs) within and between these modules. The protocol used the painful cutaneous laser as the unconditioned stimulus and ERC was estimated by analysis of local field potentials recorded through electrodes implanted for investigation of epilepsy. During the prestimulus interval of the habituation stage FL>AMY ERC interactions were common. For comparison, in the poststimulus interval of the habituation stage, only a subdivision of the FL (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, dlPFC) still exerted the FL>AMY ERC interaction (dlFC>AMY). For a further comparison, during the poststimulus interval of the acquisition stage, the dlPFC>AMY interaction persisted and an AMY>FL interaction appeared. In addition to these ERC interactions between modules, the results also show ERC interactions within modules. During the poststimulus interval, HIP>HIP ERC interactions were more common during acquisition, and deep hippocampal contacts exerted causal interactions on superficial contacts, possibly explained by connectivity between the perihippocampal gyrus and the HIP. During the prestimulus interval of the habituation stage, AMY>AMY ERC interactions were commonly found, while interactions between the deep and superficial AMY (indirect pathway) were independent of intervals and stages. These results suggest that the network subserving fear includes distributed or widespread modules, some of which are themselves {"}local networks.{"} ERC interactions between and within modules can be either static or change dynamically across intervals or stages of fear conditioning.",
keywords = "Fear, Human, Laser, Local field potentials, Network, Pain",
author = "Liu, {C. C.} and Crone, {Nathan E} and Franaszczuk, {P. J.} and Cheng, {D. T.} and David Schretlen and Frederick Lenz",
year = "2011",
month = "8",
day = "25",
doi = "10.1016/j.neuroscience.2011.05.067",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "189",
pages = "359--369",
journal = "Neuroscience",
issn = "0306-4522",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Fear conditioning is associated with dynamic directed functional interactions between and within the human amygdala, hippocampus, and frontal lobe

AU - Liu, C. C.

AU - Crone, Nathan E

AU - Franaszczuk, P. J.

AU - Cheng, D. T.

AU - Schretlen, David

AU - Lenz, Frederick

PY - 2011/8/25

Y1 - 2011/8/25

N2 - The current model of fear conditioning suggests that it is mediated through modules involving the amygdala (AMY), hippocampus (HIP), and frontal lobe (FL). We now test the hypothesis that habituation and acquisition stages of a fear conditioning protocol are characterized by different event-related causal interactions (ERCs) within and between these modules. The protocol used the painful cutaneous laser as the unconditioned stimulus and ERC was estimated by analysis of local field potentials recorded through electrodes implanted for investigation of epilepsy. During the prestimulus interval of the habituation stage FL>AMY ERC interactions were common. For comparison, in the poststimulus interval of the habituation stage, only a subdivision of the FL (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, dlPFC) still exerted the FL>AMY ERC interaction (dlFC>AMY). For a further comparison, during the poststimulus interval of the acquisition stage, the dlPFC>AMY interaction persisted and an AMY>FL interaction appeared. In addition to these ERC interactions between modules, the results also show ERC interactions within modules. During the poststimulus interval, HIP>HIP ERC interactions were more common during acquisition, and deep hippocampal contacts exerted causal interactions on superficial contacts, possibly explained by connectivity between the perihippocampal gyrus and the HIP. During the prestimulus interval of the habituation stage, AMY>AMY ERC interactions were commonly found, while interactions between the deep and superficial AMY (indirect pathway) were independent of intervals and stages. These results suggest that the network subserving fear includes distributed or widespread modules, some of which are themselves "local networks." ERC interactions between and within modules can be either static or change dynamically across intervals or stages of fear conditioning.

AB - The current model of fear conditioning suggests that it is mediated through modules involving the amygdala (AMY), hippocampus (HIP), and frontal lobe (FL). We now test the hypothesis that habituation and acquisition stages of a fear conditioning protocol are characterized by different event-related causal interactions (ERCs) within and between these modules. The protocol used the painful cutaneous laser as the unconditioned stimulus and ERC was estimated by analysis of local field potentials recorded through electrodes implanted for investigation of epilepsy. During the prestimulus interval of the habituation stage FL>AMY ERC interactions were common. For comparison, in the poststimulus interval of the habituation stage, only a subdivision of the FL (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, dlPFC) still exerted the FL>AMY ERC interaction (dlFC>AMY). For a further comparison, during the poststimulus interval of the acquisition stage, the dlPFC>AMY interaction persisted and an AMY>FL interaction appeared. In addition to these ERC interactions between modules, the results also show ERC interactions within modules. During the poststimulus interval, HIP>HIP ERC interactions were more common during acquisition, and deep hippocampal contacts exerted causal interactions on superficial contacts, possibly explained by connectivity between the perihippocampal gyrus and the HIP. During the prestimulus interval of the habituation stage, AMY>AMY ERC interactions were commonly found, while interactions between the deep and superficial AMY (indirect pathway) were independent of intervals and stages. These results suggest that the network subserving fear includes distributed or widespread modules, some of which are themselves "local networks." ERC interactions between and within modules can be either static or change dynamically across intervals or stages of fear conditioning.

KW - Fear

KW - Human

KW - Laser

KW - Local field potentials

KW - Network

KW - Pain

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79960908849&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79960908849&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2011.05.067

DO - 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2011.05.067

M3 - Article

C2 - 21664438

AN - SCOPUS:79960908849

VL - 189

SP - 359

EP - 369

JO - Neuroscience

JF - Neuroscience

SN - 0306-4522

ER -