Long-term retention of fear-potentiated startle following a short training session

Empirically based comparisons of the reliability and validity of common quantification approaches for eyeblink startle potentiation in humans

Startle potentiation is a well‐validated translational measure of negative affect. Startle potentiation is widely used in clinical and affective science, and there are multiple approaches for its quantification. The three most commonly used approaches quantify startle potentiation as the increase in startle response from a neutral to threat condition based on (1) raw potentiation, (2) standardized potentiation, or (3) percent‐change potentiation. These three quantification approaches may yield qualitatively different conclusions about effects of independent variables (IVs) on affect when within‐ or between‐group differences exist for startle response in the neutral condition. Accordingly, we directly compared these quantification approaches in a shock‐threat task using four IVs known to influence startle response in the no‐threat condition: probe intensity, time (i.e., habituation), alcohol administration, and individual differences in general startle reactivity measured at baseline. We confirmed the expected effects of time, alcohol, and general startle reactivity on affect using self‐reported fear/anxiety as a criterion. The percent‐change approach displayed apparent artifact across all four IVs, which raises substantial concerns about its validity. Both raw and standardized potentiation approaches were stable across probe intensity and time, which supports their validity. However, only raw potentiation displayed effects that were consistent with a priori specifications and/or the self‐report criterion for the effects of alcohol and general startle reactivity. Supplemental analyses of reliability and validity for each approach provided additional evidence in support of raw potentiation.

The use of cognitive enhancers in animal models of fear extinction

In anxiety disorders, such as posttraumatic stress disorders and phobias, classical conditioning pairs natural (unconditioned) fear-eliciting stimuli with contextual or discrete cues resulting in enduring fear responses to multiple stimuli. Extinction is an active learning process that results in a reduction of conditioned fear responses after conditioned stimuli are no longer paired with unconditioned stimuli. Fear extinction often produces incomplete effects and this highlights the relative permanence of bonds between conditioned stimuli and conditioned fear responses. The animal research literature is rich in its demonstration of cognitive enhancing agents that alter fear extinction. This review specifically examines the fear extinguishing effects of cognitive enhancers that act on gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), glutamatergic, cholinergic, adrenergic, dopaminergic, and cannabinoid signaling pathways. It also examines the effects of compounds that alter epigenetic and neurotrophic mechanisms in fear extinction. Of these cognitive enhancers, glutamatergic N-methyl d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor agonists, such as D-cycloserine, have enhanced fear extinction in a context-, dose- and time-dependent manner. Agents that function as glutamatergic α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) receptor agonists, alpha2-adrenergic receptor antagonists (such as yohimbine), neurotrophic factors (brain derived neurotrophic factor or BDNF) and histone deacetylase inhibitors (valproate and sodium butyrate) also improve fear extinction in animals. However, some have anxiogenic effects and their contextual and temporal effects need to be more reliably demonstrated. Various cognitive enhancers produce changes in cortico-amygdala synaptic plasticity through multiple mechanisms and these neural changes enhance fear extinction. We need to better define the changes in neural plasticity produced by these agents in order to develop more effective compounds. In the clinical setting, such use of effective cognitive enhancers with cue exposure therapy, using compounds derived from animal model studies, provides great hope for the future treatment of anxiety disorders.

Associative learning deficits increase symptoms of anxiety in humans

BACKGROUND

Unpredictability has been postulated to be fundamental to anxiety and mood disorders. The origin of this unpredictability remains obscure. Because classical conditioning promotes predictability, this study investigated whether failure to learn conditioned stimulus (CS)-unconditioned stimulus (US) relationship during fear conditioning increased anxiety and avoidance.

METHODS

Healthy subjects participated in two similar differential fear conditioning sessions separated by 1 week (n = 72) or a month (n = 61) in which one of two conditioned stimuli was associated with a shock/US. Following initial acquisition, subjects' awareness of CS-US relationship was assessed. Conditioned responses (CR) to the CS and to the experimental context were examined using the startle reflex and the skin conductance. Avoidance was operationally defined as failure to return for the second session.

RESULTS

Only aware subjects showed differential CR. In the unaware subjects, the deficit in differential conditioning was associated with increased signs of anxiety during the first and second sessions. In addition, there was greater avoidance in the unaware subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Deficits in explicit cue fear conditioning can enhance anxiety. These findings are consistent with theories that associate anxiety and mood disorders with perceived unpredictability. Contextual conditioning models may be relevant to study chronic forms of anxiety.

Olfactory-mediated fear-potentiated startle

Recently, R. Richardson, A. Vishney, and J. Lee (1999) reported that ambient odor cues that were previously paired with footshock potentiate the acoustic startle response in rats. The authors of the present study extend those findings by using a discrete 4-s amyl acetate odor paired with footshock to address several parametric issues that might be important for using odorants as conditioned stimuli (CSs) in this paradigm. Amyl acetate (5%) had no significant effect on startle in untrained rats but did potentiate startle in rats that received 1, 2, 5, or 10 odor-shock pairings. Fear-potentiated startle decreased but was still significant up to 40 days after conditioning and could be measured in test trials separated by as little as 30 s. The magnitude of potentiated startle decreased with decreasing concentrations of amyl acetate (5%-5 x 10-9%). The anxiolytic compound buspirone (10 mg/kg) significantly attenuated olfactory-mediated fear-potentiated startle.

Fear-potentiated startle: a neural and pharmacological analysis

The fear-potentiated startle paradigm has proven to be a useful system with which to analyze neural systems involved in fear and anxiety. This test measures conditioned fear by an increase in the amplitude of a simple reflex (the acoustic startle reflex) in the presence of a cue previously paired with a shock. Fear-potentiated startle is sensitive to a variety of drugs such as diazepam, morphine, and buspirone that reduce anxiety in people and can be measured reliably in humans when the eyeblink component of startle is elicited at a time when they are anticipating a shock. Electrical stimulation techniques suggest that a visual conditioned stimulus ultimately alters acoustic startle at a specific point along the acoustic startle pathway. The lateral, basolateral and central amygdaloid nuclei and the caudal branch of the ventral amygdalofugal pathway projecting to the brainstem are necessary for potentiated startle to occur. The central nucleus of the amygdala projects directly to one of the brainstem nuclei critical for startle and electrical stimulation of this nucleus increases startle amplitude. Chemical or electrolytic lesions of either the central nucleus or the lateral and basolateral nuclei of the amygdala block the expression of fear-potentiated startle. The perirhinal cortex, which projects directly to the lateral and basolateral amygdaloid nuclei, plays a critical role in the expression of fear-potentiated startle using either visual or auditory conditioned stimuli. These latter amygdaloid nuclei may actually be the site of plasticity for fear conditioning, because local infusion of the NMDA antagonist AP5 into these nuclei blocks the acquisition of fear-potentiated startle. On the other hand, the expression of fear-potentiated startle is blocked by local infusion of the non-NMDA ionotropic antagonist CNQX or the G-protein inactivating toxin, pertussis toxin, but not by AP5. Finally, we have begun to investigate brain systems that might be involved in the inhibition of fear. Local infusion of AP5 into the amygdala was found to block the acquisition of experimental extinction, a prototypical method for reducing fear. We have also established a reliable procedure for producing both external and conditioned inhibition of fear-potentiated startle and hope to eventually understand the neural systems involved in these phenomena.

Visual cortex ablations do not prevent extinction of fear-potentiated startle using a visual conditioned stimulus

Following observations in the literature that sensory cortex ablations prevent extinction of conditioned fear, the present experiments tested the generality of this finding by examining whether visual cortex ablations would prevent extinction of conditioned fear as assessed by fear-potentiated startle using a visual conditioned stimulus. Consistent with previous reports, visual cortex ablations did not prevent the acquisition or expression of fear-potentiated startle to a visual conditioned stimulus. More importantly, visual cortex ablations did not prevent extinction of fear-potentiated startle to a visual conditioned stimulus, nor did they reverse preoperatively established extinction, indicating that sensory cortex is not required for extinction of conditioned fear in all situations.