Motivational factors underlying aversive Pavlovian-instrumental transfer.

While interest in active avoidance has recently been resurgent, many concerns relating to the nature of this form of learning remain unresolved. By separating stimulus and response acquisition, aversive Pavlovian-instrumental transfer can be used to measure the effect of avoidance learning on threat processing with more control than typical avoidance procedures. However, the motivational substrates that contribute to the aversive transfer effect have not been thoroughly examined. In three studies using rodents, the impact of a variety of aversive signals on shock-avoidance responding (i.e., two-way shuttling) was evaluated. Fox urine, as well as a tone paired with the delivery of the predator odor were insufficient modulatory stimuli for the avoidance response. Similarly, a signal for the absence of food did not generate appropriate aversive motivation to enhance shuttling. Only conditioned Pavlovian stimuli that had been paired with unconditioned threats were capable of augmenting shock-avoidance responding. This was true whether the signaled outcome was the same (e.g., shock) or different (e.g., klaxon) from the avoidance outcome (i.e., shock). These findings help to characterize the aversive transfer effect and provide a more thorough analysis of its generalization to warning signals for different kinds of threats. This feature of aversive motivation has not been demonstrated using conventional avoidance procedures and could be potentially useful for applying avoidance in treatment settings.

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.