Observation of others’ threat reactions recovers memories previously shaped by firsthand experiences

Information about dangers can spread effectively by observation of others’ threat responses. Yet, it is unclear if such observational threat information interacts with associative memories that are shaped by the individual’s direct, firsthand experiences. Here, we show in humans and rats that the mere observation of a conspecific’s threat reactions reinstates previously learned and extinguished threat responses in the observer. In two experiments, human participants displayed elevated physiological responses to threat-conditioned cues after observational reinstatement in a context-specific manner. The elevation of physiological responses (arousal) was further specific to the context that was observed as dangerous. An analogous experiment in rats provided converging results by demonstrating reinstatement of defensive behavior after observing another rat’s threat reactions. Taken together, our findings provide cross-species evidence that observation of others’ threat reactions can recover associations previously shaped by direct, firsthand aversive experiences. Our study offers a perspective on how retrieval of threat memories draws from associative mechanisms that might underlie both observations of others’ and firsthand experiences.

A brainstem-central amygdala circuit underlies defensive responses to learned threats

Norepinephrine (NE) plays a central role in the acquisition of aversive learning via actions in the lateral nucleus of the amygdala (LA) [1, 2]. However, the function of NE in expression of aversively-conditioned responses has not been established. Given the role of the central nucleus of the amygdala (CeA) in the expression of such behaviors [3–5], and the presence of NE axons projections in this brain nucleus [6], we assessed the effects of NE activity in the CeA on behavioral expression using receptor-specific pharmacology and cell- and projection-specific chemogenetic manipulations. We found that inhibition and activation of locus coeruleus (LC) neurons decreases and increases freezing to aversively conditioned cues, respectively. We then show that locally inhibiting or activating LC terminals in CeA is sufficient to achieve this bidirectional modulation of defensive reactions. These findings support the hypothesis that LC projections to CeA are critical for the expression of defensive responses elicited by conditioned threats.

A brainstem-central amygdala circuit underlies defensive responses to learned threats

Norepinephrine (NE) plays a central role in the acquisition of aversive learning via actions in the lateral nucleus of the amygdala (LA)1,2. However, the function of NE in expression of aversively-conditioned responses has not been established. Given the role of the central nucleus of the amygdala (CeA) in the expression of such behaviors3, and the presence of NE projections in this brain nucleus, we assessed the effects of NE activity in the CeA on behavioral expression using receptor-specific pharmacology and cell-and projection-specific chemogenetic manipulations. We found that inhibition and activation of locus coeruleus (LC) neurons decreases and increases freezing to aversively conditioned cues, respectively. We then show that locally inhibiting or activating LC terminals in CeA is sufficient to achieve this bidirectional modulation of defensive reactions. These findings support the hypothesis that LC projections to CeA are required for the expression of defensive responses elicited by conditioned threats.

Preconditioned cues have no value

Sensory preconditioning has been used to implicate midbrain dopamine in model-based learning, contradicting the view that dopamine transients reflect model-free value. However, it has been suggested that model-free value might accrue directly to the preconditioned cue through mediated learning. Here, building on previous work (Sadacca et al., 2016), we address this question by testing whether a preconditioned cue will support conditioned reinforcement in rats. We found that while both directly conditioned and second-order conditioned cues supported robust conditioned reinforcement, a preconditioned cue did not. These data show that the preconditioned cue in our procedure does not directly accrue model-free value and further suggest that the cue may not necessarily access value even indirectly in a model-based manner. If so, then phasic response of dopamine neurons to cues in this setting cannot be described as signaling errors in predicting value.

Optogenetic study of the projections from the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis to the central amygdala

It has been proposed that the central amygdala (CeA), particularly its medial sector (CeM), generates brief fear responses to discrete conditioned cues, whereas the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST) promotes long-lasting, anxiety-like states in response to more diffuse contingencies. Although it is believed that BNST-CeA interactions determine the transition between short- and long-duration responses, the nature of these interactions remains unknown. To shed light on this question, we used a double viral strategy to drive the expression of channelrhodopsin (ChR2) in BNST cells that project to CeA. Next, using patch-clamp recordings in vitro, we investigated the connectivity of infected cells to noninfected cells in BNST and compared the influence of BNST axons on neurons in the medial and lateral (CeL) parts of CeA. CeA-projecting BNST cells were concentrated in the anterolateral (AL) and anteroventral (AV) sectors of BNST. Dense plexuses of BNST axons were observed throughout CeA. In CeA and BNST, light-evoked excitatory postsynaptic potentials accounted for a minority of responses (0–9% of tested cells); inhibition prevailed. The incidence of inhibitory responses was higher in CeM than in CeL (66% and 43% of tested cells, respectively). Within BNST, the connections from CeA-projecting to non-CeA-targeting cells varied as a function of the BNST sector: 50% vs. 9% of tested cells exhibited light-evoked responses in BNST-AL vs. BNST-AV, respectively. Overall, these results suggest that via its projection to CeA, BNST exerts an inhibitory influence over cued fear and that BNST neurons projecting to CeA form contrasting connections in different BNST subnuclei.