Intrinsic functional connectivity of the central nucleus of the amygdala and bed nucleus of the stria terminalis

How Human Amygdala and Bed Nucleus of the Stria Terminalis May Drive Distinct Defensive Responses

The ability to adaptively regulate responses to the proximity of potential danger is critical to survival and imbalance in this system may contribute to psychopathology. The bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST) is implicated in defensive responding during uncertain threat anticipation whereas the amygdala may drive responding upon more acute danger. This functional dissociation between the BNST and amygdala is however controversial, and human evidence scarce. Here we used data from two independent functional magnetic resonance imaging studies [n = 108 males and n = 70 (45 females)] to probe how coordination between the BNST and amygdala may regulate responses during shock anticipation and actual shock confrontation. In a subset of participants from Sample 2 (n = 48) we demonstrate that anticipation and confrontation evoke bradycardic and tachycardic responses, respectively. Further, we show that in each sample when going from shock anticipation to the moment of shock confrontation neural activity shifted from a region anatomically consistent with the BNST toward the amygdala. Comparisons of functional connectivity during threat processing showed overlapping yet also consistently divergent functional connectivity profiles for the BNST and amygdala. Finally, childhood maltreatment levels predicted amygdala, but not BNST, hyperactivity during shock anticipation. Our results support an evolutionary conserved, defensive distance-dependent dynamic balance between BNST and amygdala activity. Shifts in this balance may enable shifts in defensive reactions via the demonstrated differential functional connectivity. Our results indicate that early life stress may tip the neural balance toward acute threat responding and via that route predispose for affective disorder.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Previously proposed differential contributions of the BNST and amygdala to fear and anxiety have been recently debated. Despite the significance of understanding their contributions to defensive reactions, there is a paucity of human studies that directly compared these regions on activity and connectivity during threat processing. We show strong evidence for a dissociable role of the BNST and amygdala in threat processing by demonstrating in two large participant samples that they show a distinct temporal signature of threat responding as well as a discriminable pattern of functional connections and differential sensitivity to early life threat.

Role of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis in aversive learning and memory

Surviving threats in the environment requires brain circuits for detecting (or anticipating) danger and for coordinating appropriate defensive responses (e.g., increased cardiac output, stress hormone release, and freezing behavior). The bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST) is a critical interface between the "affective forebrain"-including the amygdala, ventral hippocampus, and medial prefrontal cortex-and the hypothalamic and brainstem areas that have been implicated in neuroendocrine, autonomic, and behavioral responses to actual or anticipated threats. However, the precise contribution of the BNST to defensive behavior is unclear, both in terms of the antecedent stimuli that mobilize BNST activity and the consequent defensive reactions. For example, it is well known that the BNST is essential for contextual fear conditioning, but dispensable for fear conditioning to discrete conditioned stimuli (CSs), at least as indexed by freezing behavior. However, recent evidence suggests that there are circumstances in which contextual freezing may persist independent of the BNST. Furthermore, the BNST is involved in the reinstatement (or relapse) of conditioned freezing to extinguished discrete CSs. As such, there are critical gaps in understanding how the BNST contributes to fundamental processes involved in Pavlovian fear conditioning. Here, we attempt to provide an integrative account of BNST function in fear conditioning. We discuss distinctions between unconditioned stress and conditioned fear and the role of BNST circuits in organizing behaviors associated with these states. We propose that the BNST mediates conditioned defensive responses-not based on the modality or duration of the antecedent threat or the duration of the behavioral response to the threat-but rather as consequence the ability of an antecedent stimulus to predict when an aversive outcome will occur (i.e., its temporal predictability). We argue that the BNST is not uniquely mobilized by sustained threats or uniquely involved in organizing sustained fear responses. In contrast, we argue that the BNST is involved in organizing fear responses to stimuli that poorly predict when danger will occur, no matter the duration, modality, or complexity of those stimuli. The concepts discussed in this review are critical to understanding the contribution of the human BNST to fear and anxiety disorders.