Second-order Fear Conditioning Research Articles

Second-order fear conditioning involves formation of competing stimulus-danger and stimulus-safety associations.

How do animals process experiences that provide contradictory information? The present study addressed this question using second-order fear conditioning in rats. In second-order conditioning, rats are conditioned to fear a stimulus, S1, through its pairings with foot-shock (stage 1); and some days later, a second stimulus, S2, through its pairings with the already-conditioned S1 (stage 2). However, as foot-shock is never presented during conditioning to S2, we hypothesized that S2 simultaneously encodes 2 contradictory associations: one that drives fear to S2 (S2-danger) and another that reflects the absence of the expected unconditioned stimulus and partially masks that fear (e.g. S2-safety). We tested this hypothesis by manipulating the substrates of danger and safety learning in the brain (using a chemogenetic approach) and assessing the consequences for second-order fear to S2. Critically, silencing activity in the basolateral amygdala (important for danger learning) reduced fear to S2, whereas silencing activity in the infralimbic cortex (important for safety learning) enhanced fear to S2. These bidirectional changes are consistent with our hypothesis that second-order fear conditioning involves the formation of competing S2-danger and S2-safety associations. More generally, they show that a single set of experiences can produce contradictory associations and that the brain resolves the contradiction by encoding these associations in distinct brain regions.

The Opioid Receptor Antagonist Naloxone Enhances First-Order Fear Conditioning, Second-Order Fear Conditioning and Sensory Preconditioning in Rats.

The opioid receptor antagonist naloxone enhances Pavlovian fear conditioning when rats are exposed to pairings of an initially neutral stimulus, such as a tone, and a painful foot shock unconditioned stimulus (US; so-called first-order fear conditioning; Pavlov, 1927). The present series of experiments examined whether naloxone has the same effect when conditioning occurs in the absence of US exposure. In Experiments 1a and 1b, rats were exposed to tone-shock pairings in stage 1 (one trial per day for 4 days) and then to pairings of an initially neutral light with the already conditioned tone in stage 2 (one trial per day for 4 days). Experiment 1a confirmed that this training results in second-order fear of the light; and Experiment 1b showed that naloxone enhances this conditioning: rats injected with naloxone in stage 2 froze more than vehicle-injected controls when tested with the light alone (drug-free). In Experiments 2a and 2b, rats were exposed to light-tone pairings in stage 1 (one trial per day for 4 days) and then to tone-shock pairings in stage 2 (one trial per day for 2 days). Experiment 2a confirmed that this training results in sensory preconditioned fear of the light; and Experiment 2b showed that naloxone enhances sensory preconditioning when injected prior to each of the light-tone pairings: rats injected with naloxone in stage 1 froze more than vehicle-injected controls when tested with the light alone (drug-free). These results were taken to mean that naloxone enhances fear conditioning independently of its effect on US processing; and more generally, that opioids regulate the error-correction mechanisms that underlie associative formation.

Acquisition and extinction of second-order context conditioned fear: Role of the amygdala

Second-order fear conditioning has been demonstrated in protocols using discrete and simple stimuli, and much is now known about its behavioral and neural characteristics. In contrast, the mechanisms of second-order conditioning to more complex stimuli, such as contexts, are unknown. To address this gap in our knowledge, we conducted a series of experiments to investigate the neural and behavioral characteristics of second-order context fear conditioning in rats. We found that rats acquire fear to a context in which a first-order conditioned stimulus is presented (Experiment 1); neuronal activity in the basolateral amygdala (BLA) is required for the acquisition (Experiment 2) and extinction (Experiment 3) of second-order context fear; second-order context fear can be reduced by extinction of its first-order conditioned stimulus associate (Experiment 4); and that second-order fear reduced in this way is restored when fear of the first-order conditioned stimulus spontaneously recovers or is reconditioned (Experiment 5). Thus, second-order context fear requires neuronal activity in the BLA, and once established, tracks the level of fear to its first-order conditioned stimulus-associate. These results are discussed with respect to the substrates of second-order fear conditioning in other protocols, and the role of the amygdala in different forms of conditioning.

Chronic stress has lasting effects on improved cued discrimination early in extinction.

Chronic stress typically leads to deficits in fear extinction when tested soon after chronic stress ends. Given the importance of extinction in updating fear memories, the current study examined whether fear extinction was impaired in rats that were chronically stressed and then given a break from the end of chronic stress to the start of fear conditioning and extinction. Male rats were chronically stressed by restraint (6 h/d/21 d) and tested soon (termed immediate, STR-IMM), or 3 or 6 wk after a rest period from restraint (termed rest or “R,” STR-R3, STR-R6). In Experiment 1, STR-R3 and STR-R6 discriminated between the cue and nonshock context better than STR-IMM or control. Interestingly, STR-IMM showed high freezing to the nonshock context. Consequently, Experiment 2 investigated whether STR-IMM generalized across contexts, which was not supported. Experiment 3 determined whether STR-IMM were susceptible to second-order conditioning to a novel context, but showed that the level of second-order conditioning was similar for all groups. These findings reveal that rats exposed to chronic stress and then given a rest period of 3 or 6 wk, express unique fear extinction profiles compared to control and STR-IMM. Specifically, STR-R demonstrated excellent cue and context discrimination during extinction, and perhaps showed a stress inoculation effect. For STR-IMM, the heightened freezing under these extensive acclimation parameters was not attributed to generalization nor to second-order fear conditioning to “safe” contexts and, instead, may reflect hypervigilance.

Higher-order conditioning and the retrosplenial cortex

The retrosplenial cortex (RSC) is known to contribute to contextual and spatial learning and memory. This is consistent with its well-established connectivity; the RSC is located at the interface of visuo-spatial association areas and the parahippocampal–hippocampal memory system. However, the RSC also contributes to learning and memory for discrete cues. For example, both permanent lesions and temporary inactivation of the RSC have been shown to impair sensory preconditioning, a form of higher-order conditioning. The purpose of the present experiment was to examine the role of the RSC in a closely related higher-order conditioning paradigm: second-order conditioning. Sham and RSC lesioned rats received first-order conditioning in which one visual stimulus (V1) was paired with footshock and one visual stimulus (V2) was not. Following first-order conditioning, one auditory stimulus (A1) was then paired with V1 and a second auditory stimulus (A2) was paired with V2. Although lesions of the RSC impaired the first-order discrimination, they had no impact on the acquisition of second-order conditioning. Thus, the RSC does not appear necessary for acquisition/expression of second-order fear conditioning. The role of the RSC in higher-order conditioning, as well as a possible dissociation from the hippocampus, is discussed.

Temporal factors in the extinction of fear in inbred mouse strains differing in extinction efficacy

BackgroundVarious neuropsychiatric conditions, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), are characterized by deficient fear extinction, but individuals differ greatly in risk for these. While there is growing evidence that fear extinction is influenced by certain procedural variables, it is unclear how these influences might vary across individuals and subpopulations. To model individual differences in fear extinction, prior studies identified a strain of inbred mouse, 129S1/SvImJ (S1), which exhibits a profound deficit in fear extinction, as compared to other inbred strains, such as C57BL/6J (B6).MethodsHere, we assessed the effects of procedural variables on the impaired extinction phenotype of the S1 strain and, by comparison, the extinction-intact B6 strain. The variables studied were 1) the interval between conditioning and extinction, 2) the interval between cues during extinction training, 3) single-cue exposure before extinction training, and 4) extinction of a second-order conditioned cue.ResultsConducting extinction training soon after (‘immediately’) conditioning attenuated fear retrieval in S1 mice and impaired extinction in B6 mice. Spacing cue presentations with long inter-trial intervals during extinction training augmented fear in S1 and B6 mice. The effect of spacing was lost with one-trial fear conditioning in B6, but not S1 mice. A single exposure to a conditioned cue before extinction training did not alter extinction retrieval, either in B6 or S1 mice. Both the S1 and B6 strains exhibited robust second-order fear conditioning, in which a cue associated with footshock was sufficient to serve as a conditioned exciter to condition a fear association to a second cue. B6 mice extinguished the fear response to the second-order conditioned cue, but S1 mice failed to do so.ConclusionsThese data provide further evidence that fear extinction is strongly influenced by multiple procedural variables and is so in a highly strain-dependent manner. This suggests that the efficacy of extinction-based behavioral interventions, such as exposure therapy, for trauma-related anxiety disorders will be determined by the procedural parameters employed and the degree to which the patient can extinguish.

Contributions of the amygdala central nucleus and ventrolateral periaqueductal grey to freezing and instrumental suppression in Pavlovian fear conditioning

In Pavlovian fear conditioning animals receive pairings of a neutral cue and an aversive stimulus such as an electric foot-shock. Through such pairings, the cue will come to elicit a central state of fear that produces a variety of autonomic and behavioral responses, among which are conditioned freezing and suppression of instrumental responding, termed conditioned suppression. The central nucleus of the amygdala (CeA) and the ventrolateral periaqueductal grey (vlPAG) has been strongly implicated in the acquisition and expression of conditioned fear. However, previous work suggests different roles for the CeA and vlPAG in fear learning maybe revealed when fear is assessed with conditioned freezing or conditioned suppression. To further explore this possibility we gave rats selective lesions of either the CeA or vlPAG and trained them in Pavlovian first-order fear conditioning as well as Pavlovian second-order fear conditioning. We concurrently assessed the acquisition of conditioned freezing and conditioned suppression. We found that vlPAG and CeA lesions impaired both first- and second-order conditioned freezing. VlPAG lesions did not impair, and CeA lesions only transiently impaired, first-order conditioned suppression. However, both vlPAG and CeA lesions impaired second-order conditioned suppression. These results suggest that the CeA and vlPAG are critically important to expressing fear through conditioned freezing but play different and less critical roles in expressing fear through conditioned suppression.

Second-order olfactory-mediated fear-potentiated startle.

Recently, we reported that discrete (4-sec) olfactory cues paired with footshock serve as effective conditioned stimuli (CSs) for potentiating the acoustic startle response in rats using the fear-potentiated startle paradigm. Because odors are such salient cues for the rat, and because of the robust olfactory conditioning observed previously, the current studies investigated second-order fear conditioning using olfactory and visual cues. In Experiments 1 and 2, we used a small number of first-order and second-order training trials on separate days to investigate second-order fear-potentiated startle. Significant potentiated startle was observed in animals receiving Paired/Paired training in both studies, but surprisingly, control animals in the Unpaired/Paired group (Exp. 1) also showed significant potentiated startle to a light S2 at testing. These findings are addressed in the Discussion. Overall, the results of both experiments suggest that olfactory cues serve as efficient S1 and S2 stimuli in second-order fear-potentiated startle paradigms when only a small number of first and second-order training trials are presented.

The dopaminergic modulation of fear: quinpirole impairs the recall of emotional memories in rats.

Past studies examining the contributions of dopamine to fear have produced inconsistent results. The present experiments reevaluated this issue. It was found that systemic pretreatment with the D2 agonist quinpirole before pairing 2 conditioned stimuli (CSs; CS2-CS1) dose dependently blocked the acquisition of second-order fear conditioning. Quinpirole's actions were not due to nonspecific impairments in the ability to perceive the CSs, or form and store an association, because the identical drug pretreatment before pairing the same 2 CSs had no effect on the acquisition of sensory preconditioning. In a separate study, rats were given fear conditioning while untreated and then received extinction sessions while under the influence of quinpirole or its vehicle. Quinpirole pretreatment blocked extinction. Findings suggest that quinpirole decreased fear by blocking the retrieval of a learned association between a CS and unconditioned stimulus (US), rather than by devaluing the US, which would have resulted from summation of quinpirole's appetitive properties with the aversive properties of fear.

Application of Pavlovian higher-order conditioning to the analysis of the neural substrates of fear conditioning

In Pavlovian first-order conditioning, a conditioned response is acquired by pairing a neutral stimulus (S1) with a stimulus that has innate motivational value. In higher-order conditioning, a neutral stimulus (S2) is paired with S1 either after (second-order conditioning) or before (sensory preconditioning) first-order conditioning has been acquired. Thus, in higher-order conditioning the motivational value of the reinforcer is acquired rather than innate. This review describes some of the potential uses of higher-order conditioning in investigating the neural substrates of fearful memories. First, because in second-order fear conditioning S2 is not paired directly with a painful stimulus, any effect of a treatment on the acquisition of fear cannot be attributed to the treatment’s possible effects on transmission of nociceptive information. Second, higher-order conditioning provides opportunities for analyzing where and how different types of events, or different aspects of the same events, are represented in the brain.

Second-order fear conditioning prevented by blocking NMDA receptors in amygdala.

Antagonists of NMDA (N-methyl-D-aspartate)-type glutamate receptors disrupt several forms of learning. Although this might indicate that NMDA-receptor-mediated processes are critical for synaptic plasticity, there may be other mechanisms by which NMDA-receptor antagonism could interfere with learning. For instance, fear conditioning would be blocked by microinfusion of the NMDA-receptor antagonist AP5 (D,L-2-amino-5-phosphonovalerate) into the basolateral amygdala if AP5 inhibited routine synaptic transmission, thereby reducing the ability of stimuli to activate amygdala neurons. In second-order fear conditioning, the reinforcer is a fear-eliciting conditioned stimulus rather than an unconditioned stimulus. Expression of conditioned fear is amygdala-dependent and so provides a behavioural assessment of the ability of the reinforcer to activate amygdala neurons in the presence of AP5. We report here that intra-amygdala AP5 actually enhances expression of conditioned fear to the conditioned stimulus that provides the reinforcement signal for second-order conditioning. Nevertheless, acquisition of second-order fear conditioning is completely blocked. Our findings strongly support the view that NMDA receptors are critically involved in synaptic plasticity.

Endogenous Opioids Interfere with Pavlovian Second-Order Fear Conditioning

Second-order classical (Pavlovian) aversive conditioning was used to determine whether endogenous opiates play a role in the acquisition of associative learning. Second-order conditioning avoids confounding drug effects on associative learning with altered responsiveness to unconditioned stimuli (e.g., hyperalgesia). Administration of the prototypical opiate antagonist naloxone (2.0 mg/kg) prior to the second-order training session specifically facilitated associative learning as indicated by greater lick suppression over 3 days of testing. This result suggests that endogenous opiates retard the acquisition of associative learning, which complements previous studies demonstrating an opioid attenuation of memory consolidation.

Second-order conditioning using a contextual stimulus as S1

Three experiments investigated the question of whether a spatial stimulus, a context, could function as S1 in a second-order conditioning procedure. In each experiment, rat subjects were presented with S1-US pairings by being given footshocks in one of two contexts. Forty-eight hours later, the experimental groups received S2-S1 pairings, during which a tone was presented in the training context. As measured by a lick-suppression test administered in a third context, rats were more fearful of the tone if it occurred in the context in which they had previously been shocked. The training context in each experiment apparently served to establish second-order fear conditioning to the tone.

Second-order conditioning: Different outcomes in fear and eyelid conditioning

Second-order conditioning has been frequently observed with the fear response but not with the eyelid response. The present experiments manipulated the temporal relationship between the second-order and first-order stimulus on second-order conditioning trials. Our results indicated that a trace second-order procedure is not effective with either response system. Second-order fear conditioning was most prominent when the second-order CS terminated at the onset of the first-order CS. This arrangement, however, did not produce second-order eyelid CRs. In eyelid conditioning, the second-order CS appears to inhibit responding to the first-order CS which immediately follows it.

Second-order fear conditioning as revealed through augmentation of a startle response: Part II

An auditory startle stimulus was presented 1, 17, and 27 sec following termination of a second-order, classically conditioned, fear-evoking CS. Forward second-order conditioned Ss consistently exceeded the startle magnitudes of backward second-order conditioned controls at all intervals. An analysis of movement during the CS2-startle intervals indicated that a postural interpretation could not account for startle augmentation in experimental Ss. A drive-like construct was posited to handle these data.

Second-order fear conditioning as revealed through augmentation of a startle response: Part I

A loud, abrupt auditory startle stimulus was presented 1, 17, and 27 sec following termination of a classically conditioned, fear-evoking, second-order stimulus. Forward, second-order conditioned Ss consistently exceeded the startle magnitudes of backward, second-order conditioned controls at all intervals with one exception (the 1-sec interval).