Cited by 298Memory and Neural MechanismsNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Placing prediction into the fear circuit

Open access
McNally, Gavan P., Johansen, Joshua P., Blair, Hugh T.·2011·Trends in Neurosciences

Abstract

Pavlovian fear conditioning depends on synaptic plasticity at amygdala neurons. Here, we review recent electrophysiological, molecular and behavioral evidence suggesting the existence of a distributed neural circuitry regulating amygdala synaptic plasticity during fear learning. This circuitry, which involves projections from the midbrain periaqueductal gray region, can be linked to prediction error and expectation modulation of fear learning, as described by associative and computational learning models. It controls whether, and how much, fear learning occurs by signaling aversive events when they are unexpected. Functional neuroimaging and clinical studies indicate that this prediction circuit is recruited in humans during fear learning and contributes to exposure-based treatments for clinical anxiety. This aversive prediction error circuit might represent a conserved mechanism for regulating fear learning in mammals.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tins.2011.03.005

Cites

122 of 122 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Dopamine is implicated in pavlovian extinction learning.

    “dopamine has also been implicated in pavlovian extinction learning (for review see McNally et al., 2011).”

    From Retrieval-Dependent Mechanisms Affecting Emotional Memory Persistence: Reconsolidation, Extinction, and the Space in Between (2020) · cites this paper as McNally et al., 2011

    The Conclusions (page unavailable) implicate dopamine in Pavlovian fear conditioning, including associative blocking, but do not link it specifically to extinction learning. The section ‘Instruction of fear extinction by negative prediction errors’ (page unavailable) discusses opioids and other mechanisms of extinction instead. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Expectancy effects in the periaqueductal gray appear mediated by inhibition of ascending nociceptive inputs through endogenous opioid release, which blocks nociceptive responses when pain is expected.

    “These expectancy effects seem to be mediated by inhibition of ascending nociceptive inputs through the release of endogenous opioids in the PAG1, which blocks nociceptive responses when pain is expected.”
  • Animal models of fear conditioning suggest that regions encoding avoidance value receive prediction error signals generated in the PAG.

    “Based on existent animal models of fear conditioning1,18, we posited that these regions receive the PE signals generated in PAG.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [33]Pearce JM Mackintosh NJ Mitchell CJ LePelley ME Two theories of attention: a review and possible integration. Attention and Associative Learning 2010 11 40 Oxford
  2. [112]Holland PC Maddux J-M Mitchell CJ LePelley ME Brain systems for attention in associative learning. Attention and Associative Learning 2010 305 350 Oxford

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McNally, G. P., Johansen, J. P., & Blair, H. T.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • New York University (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
McNally, Gavan P.
Venue
Trends in Neurosciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-06
Volume
34
Issue
6
Pages
283-292
ISSN
0166-2236 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2023596252
Cited by
298
References
122
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 20
FWCI
1.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trends in Neurosciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Australian Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
  • National Medical Research Council
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH073700)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
fear conditioning, prediction error, periaqueductal gray, fear learning, exposure therapy, anxiety disorders, fear extinction
MeSH terms
Amygdala, Animals, Conditioning, Classical, Fear, Humans, Learning, Neuronal Plasticity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review