Faculty Bibliography

Signaled active avoidance (AA) paradigms train subjects to prevent an aversive outcome by performing a learned behavior during the presentation of a conditioned cue. This complex form of conditioning involves pavlovian and instrumental components, which produce competing behavioral responses that must be reconciled for the subject to successfully avoid an aversive stimulus. In signaled AA paradigm for rat, we tested the hypothesis that the instrumental component of AA training recruits infralimbic prefrontal cortex (ilPFC) to inhibit central amygdala (CeA)-mediated Pavlovian reactions. Pretraining lesions of ilPFC increased conditioned freezing while causing a corresponding decrease in avoidance; lesions of CeA produced opposite effects, reducing freezing and facilitating avoidance behavior. Pharmacological inactivation experiments demonstrated that ilPFC is relevant to both acquisition and expression phases of AA learning. Inactivation experiments also revealed that AA produces an ilPFC-mediated diminution of pavlovian reactions that extends beyond the training context, even when the conditioned stimulus is presented in an environment that does not allow the avoidance response. Finally, injection of a protein synthesis inhibitor into either ilPFC or CeA impaired or facilitated AA, respectively, showing that avoidance training produces two opposing memory traces in these regions. These data support a model in which AA learning recruits ilPFC to inhibit CeA-mediated defense behaviors, leading to a robust suppression of freezing that generalizes across environments. Thus, ilPFC functions as an inhibitory interface, allowing instrumental control over an aversive outcome to attenuate the expression of freezing and other reactions to conditioned threat.

BACKGROUND: The lateral nucleus of the amygdala (LA) is a crucial part of the neural circuitry underlying the formation and storage of memories established through fear conditioning. To investigate corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) contributions to fear memory in LA, the present experiments tested the effects of intra-LA infusions on the formation and expression of memory after Pavlovian fear conditioning. METHODS: In experiment 1, CRF was infused bilaterally into LA of rats 1 hour before fear conditioning training. Two days later, rats were tested for conditioned stimulus (CS)-elicited freezing behavior in a distinct context. In experiment 2, rats were infused with CRF in LA immediately after auditory fear conditioning and then tested 2 days later. In experiment 3, rats were fear conditioned and then 2 days later infused with CRF in LA 1 hour before fear memory testing to assess effects on the expression of fear memory. Finally, we repeated the pretraining and pretesting experiments with the central nucleus of the amygdala infusions. RESULTS: Rats given either pretraining or posttraining CRF infusions in LA showed dose-dependent suppression of CS-elicited freezing in the fear memory test session. In contrast, rats given pretesting CRF showed facilitation of CS-elicited freezing. Corticotropin-releasing factor infusions into the central nucleus of the amygdala had no effect when given before-training or testing. CONCLUSIONS: Corticotropin-releasing factor infusions into LA impair the consolidation of memory for fear conditioning but enhance the expression of pre-established fear memories. These findings may have important implications for understanding mechanisms underlying contributions of CRF to fear-related disorders.

Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer (PIT) is an effect whereby a classically conditioned stimulus (CS) enhances ongoing instrumental responding. PIT has been extensively studied with appetitive conditioning but barely at all with aversive conditioning. Although it's been argued that conditioned suppression is a form of aversive PIT, this effect is fundamentally different from appetitive PIT because the CS suppresses, instead of facilitates, responding. Five experiments investigated the importance of a variety of factors on aversive PIT in a rodent Sidman avoidance paradigm in which ongoing shuttling behavior (unsignaled active avoidance or USAA) was facilitated by an aversive CS. Experiment 1 demonstrated a basic PIT effect. Experiment 2 found that a moderate amount of USAA extinction produces the strongest PIT with shuttling rates best at around 2 responses per minute prior to the CS. Experiment 3 tested a protocol in which the USAA behavior was required to reach the 2-response per minute mark in order to trigger the CS presentation and found that this produced robust and reliable PIT. Experiment 4 found that the Pavlovian conditioning US intensity was not a major determinant of PIT strength. Experiment 5 demonstrated that if the CS and US were not explicitly paired during Pavlovian conditioning, PIT did not occur, showing that CS-US learning is required. Together, these studies demonstrate a robust, reliable and stable aversive PIT effect that is amenable to analysis of neural circuitry.

Pavlovian threat (fear) conditioning (PTC) is an experimental paradigm that couples innate aversive stimuli with neutral cues to elicit learned defensive behavior in response to the neutral cue. PTC is commonly used as a translational model to study neurobiological and behavioral aspects of fear and anxiety disorders including Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Though PTSD is a complex multi-faceted construct that cannot be fully captured in animals PTC is a conceptually valid model for studying the development and maintenance of learned threat responses. Thus, it can inform the understanding of PTSD symptomatology. However, there are significant individual differences in posttraumatic stress that are not as of yet accounted for in studies of PTC. Individuals exposed to danger have been shown to follow distinct patterns: some adapt rapidly and completely (resilience) others adapt slowly (recovery) and others failure to adapt (chronic stress response). Identifying similar behavioral outcomes in PTC increases the translatability of this model. In this report we present a flexible methodology for identifying individual differences in PTC by modeling latent subpopulations or classes characterized by defensive behavior during training. We provide evidence from a reanalysis of previously examined PTC learning and extinction data in rats to demonstrate the effectiveness of this methodology in identifying outcomes analogous to those observed in humans exposed to threat. By utilizing Latent Class Growth Analysis (LCGA) to test for heterogeneity in freezing behavior during threat conditioning and extinction learning in adult male outbred rats (n = 58) three outcomes were identified: rapid extinction (57.3%), slow extinction (32.3%), and failure to extinguish (10.3%) indicating that heterogeneity analogous to that in naturalistic human studies is present in experimental animal studies strengthening their translatability in understanding stress responses in humans.

Neural circuits underlie our ability to interact in the world and to learn adaptively from experience. Understanding neural circuits and how circuit structure gives rise to neural firing patterns or computations is fundamental to our understanding of human experience and behavior. Fear conditioning is a powerful model system in which to study neural circuits and information processing and relate them to learning and behavior. Until recently, technological limitations have made it difficult to study the causal role of specific circuit elements during fear conditioning. However, newly developed optogenetic tools allow researchers to manipulate individual circuit components such as anatomically or molecularly defined cell populations, with high temporal precision. Applying these tools to the study of fear conditioning to control specific neural subpopulations in the fear circuit will facilitate a causal analysis of the role of these circuit elements in fear learning and memory. By combining this approach with in vivo electrophysiological recordings in awake, behaving animals, it will also be possible to determine the functional contribution of specific cell populations to neural processing in the fear circuit. As a result, the application of optogenetics to fear conditioning could shed light on how specific circuit elements contribute to neural coding and to fear learning and memory. Furthermore, this approach may reveal general rules for how circuit structure and neural coding within circuits gives rise to sensory experience and behavior.