MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Prediction Error Determines Whether NMDA Receptors in the Basolateral Amygdala Complex Are Involved in Pavlovian Fear Conditioning

2022· article· en· W4223554965 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew J. Williams-Spooner, Andrew Delaney, R. Frederick Westbrook, Nathan M. Holmes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFear conditioningNeurosciencePsychologyAmygdalaBasolateral amygdalaNMDA receptorClassical conditioningFear processing in the brainContext (archaeology)ConditioningAMPA receptorAversive StimulusStimulus (psychology)Freezing behaviorBlockadeCognitive psychologyReceptorMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is widely accepted that activation of NMDA receptors (NMDAR) is necessary for the formation of fear memories in the basolateral amygdala complex (BLA). This acceptance is based on findings that blockade of NMDAR in the BLA disrupts Pavlovian fear conditioning in rodents when initially innocuous stimuli are paired with aversive and unexpected events (surprising foot shock). The present study challenges this acceptance by showing that the involvement of NMDAR in Pavlovian fear conditioning is determined by prediction errors in relation to aversive events. In the initial experiments, male rats received a BLA infusion of the NMDAR antagonist, D-AP5 and were then exposed to pairings of a novel target stimulus and foot shock. This infusion disrupted acquisition of fear to the target when the shock was surprising (experiments 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b) but spared fear to the target when the shock was expected based on the context, time and other stimuli that were present (experiments 1a and 1b). Under the latter circumstances, fear to the target required activation of calcium-permeable AMPAR (CP-AMPA; experiments 4a, 4b, and 4c), which, using electrophysiology, were shown to regulate the activity of interneurons in the BLA (experiment 5). Thus, NMDAR activation is not required for fear conditioning when danger occurs as expected given the context, time and stimuli present, but is required for fear conditioning when danger occurs unexpectedly. These findings are related to current theories of NMDAR function and ways that prediction errors might influence the substrates of fear memory formation in the BLA. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTIt is widely accepted that NMDA receptors (NMDAR) in the basolateral amygdala complex (BLA) are activated by pairings of a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an aversive unconditioned (US) stimulus, leading to the synaptic changes that underlie formation of a CS-US association. The present findings are significant in showing that this theory is incomplete. When the aversive US is unexpected, animals encode all features of the situation (context, time and stimuli present) as a new fear/threat memory, which is regulated by NMDAR in the BLA. However, when the US is expected based on the context, time and stimuli present, the new fear memory is assimilated into networks that represent those features, which occurs independently of NMDAR activation in the BLA.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.165
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.156 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroscience→Same topicMemory and Neural Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→