Neural correlates of human fear conditioning and sources of variability in 2199 individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pavlovian fear conditioning is a fundamental process in both health and disease. We investigate its neural correlates and sources of variability using harmonized functional magnetic resonance imaging data from 2199 individuals across nine countries, including 1888 healthy individuals and 311 with anxiety-related or depressive disorders. Using mega-analysis and normative modeling, we show that fear conditioning consistently engages brain regions within the “central autonomic–interoceptive” or “salience” network. Several task variables strongly modulate activity in these regions, contributing to variability in neural responses. Additionally, brain activation patterns differ between healthy individuals and those with anxiety-related or depressive disorders, with distinct profiles characterizing specific disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder. While the neural correlates of fear conditioning are highly generalizable at the population level, variability arises from differences in task design and clinical status, highlighting the importance of methodological diversity in capturing fear learning mechanisms. A large brain imaging study of over 2000 people worldwide shows that fear conditioning engages brain regions linked to emotion and attention, with differences in individuals with anxiety or depression and strong influences from task design.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".