4.6 Article

Aversive Learning Modulates Cortical Representations of Object Categories

期刊

CEREBRAL CORTEX
卷 24, 期 11, 页码 2859-2872

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bht138

关键词

anxiety; categories and concepts; fear conditioning; functional magnetic resonance imaging; generalization

资金

  1. NSF [0745919]
  2. NIH [R01 DA027802, F31 MH090682]
  3. Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci
  4. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie [0745919] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Experimental studies of conditioned learning reveal activity changes in the amygdala and unimodal sensory cortex underlying fear acquisition to simple stimuli. However, real-world fears typically involve complex stimuli represented at the category level. A consequence of category-level representations of threat is that aversive experiences with particular category members may lead one to infer that related exemplars likewise pose a threat, despite variations in physical form. Here, we examined the effect of category-level representations of threat on human brain activation using 2 superordinate categories (animals and tools) as conditioned stimuli. Hemodynamic activity in the amygdala and category-selective cortex was modulated by the reinforcement contingency, leading to widespread fear of different exemplars from the reinforced category. Multivariate representational similarity analyses revealed that activity patterns in the amygdala and object-selective cortex were more similar among exemplars from the threat versus safe category. Learning to fear animate objects was additionally characterized by enhanced functional coupling between the amygdala and fusiform gyrus. Finally, hippocampal activity co-varied with object typicality and amygdala activation early during training. These findings provide novel evidence that aversive learning can modulate category-level representations of object concepts, thereby enabling individuals to express fear to a range of related stimuli.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据