What is learned determines how Pavlovian conditioned fear is consolidated in the brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Activity in the basolateral amygdala complex (BLA) is needed to encode fears acquired through contact with both innate sources of danger (i.e., things that are painful) and learned sources of danger (e.g., being threatened with a gun). However, within the BLA, the molecular processes required to consolidate the two types of fear are not the same: protein synthesis is needed to consolidate the first type of fear (so-called first-order fear) but not the latter (so-called second-order fear). The present study examined why first- and second-order fears differ in this respect. To do so, it used a range of conditioning protocols in rats and assessed the effects of a BLA infusion of the protein synthesis inhibitor, cycloheximide, on fear to first- and second-order conditioned stimuli. The results revealed that the differential protein synthesis requirements for consolidation of first- and second-order fears reflect differences in what is learned in each case. Protein synthesis in the BLA is needed to consolidate fears that result from encoding of relations between stimuli in the environment (stimulus-stimulus associations, typical for first-order fear) but is not needed to consolidate fears that form when environmental stimuli associate directly with fear responses emitted by the animal (stimulus-response associations, typical for second-order fear). Thus, the substrates of Pavlovian fear conditioning in the BLA depend on the way that the environment impinges upon the animal. This is discussed with respect to theories of amygdala function in Pavlovian fear conditioning, and ways in which stimulus-response associations might be consolidated in the brain.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".