A scalable spiking amygdala model that explains fear conditioning, extinction, renewal and generalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The amygdala (AMY) is widely implicated in fear learning and fear behaviour, but it remains unclear how the many biological components present within AMY interact to achieve these abilities. Building on previous work, we hypothesize that individual AMY nuclei represent different quantities and that fear conditioning arises from error-driven learning on the synapses between AMY nuclei. We present a computational model of AMY that (a) recreates the divisions and connections between AMY nuclei and their constituent pyramidal and inhibitory neurons; (b) accommodates scalable high-dimensional representations of external stimuli; (c) learns to associate complex stimuli with the presence (or absence) of an aversive stimulus; (d) preserves feature information when mapping inputs to salience estimates, such that these estimates generalize to similar stimuli; and (e) induces a diverse profile of neural responses within each nucleus. Our model predicts (1) defensive responses and neural activities in several experimental conditions, (2) the consequence of artificially ablating particular nuclei and (3) the tendency to generalize defensive responses to novel stimuli. We test these predictions by comparing model outputs to neural and behavioural data from animals and humans. Despite the relative simplicity of our model, we find significant overlap between simulated and empirical data, which supports our claim that the model captures many of the neural mechanisms that support fear conditioning. We conclude by comparing our model to other computational models and by characterizing the theoretical relationship between pattern separation and fear generalization in healthy versus anxious individuals.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".