Cited by 68Memory and Neural MechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Aversive Prediction Error Signals in the Amygdala

Open access
McHugh, S. B., Barkus, C., Huber, A., Capitao, L., Lima, J., Lowry, J. P., Bannerman, D. M.·2014·Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Prediction error signals are fundamental to learning. Here, in mice, we show that aversive prediction signals are found in the hemodynamic responses and theta oscillations recorded from the basolateral amygdala. During fear conditioning, amygdala responses evoked by footshock progressively decreased, whereas responses evoked by the auditory cue that predicted footshock concomitantly increased. Unexpected footshock evoked larger amygdala responses than expected footshock. The magnitude of the amygdala response to the footshock predicted behavioral responses the following day. The omission of expected footshock led to a decrease below baseline in the amygdala response suggesting a negative aversive prediction error signal. Thus, in mice, amygdala activity conforms to temporal difference models of aversive learning.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.4465-13.2014

Cites

55 of 55 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?

  • Experiencing large prediction errors leads to learning over time.

    “Available evidence indicates that experiencing large PEs leads to learning over time15,16.”

    From Boundary effects of expectation in human pain perception (2019) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Abstract says prediction-error signals are fundamental to learning, and the section ‘Relationship between amygdala signals and freezing behavior’ reports that mice with larger footshock-evoked amygdala responses showed better discrimination the following day. This supports a link between response magnitude and later learning, but the study does not establish that experiencing larger prediction errors causes learning generally. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Experiencing PEs could, over time, change participants' association between the cue and the pain outcome.

    “Furthermore, experiencing PEs could, over time, change participant’s association between the cue and the pain outcome15,16,29.”

    From Boundary effects of expectation in human pain perception (2019) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Summary of results says prediction errors are necessary for learning, and the Behavioral responses section reports that mice learned which cue predicted footshock over three days. This supports the proposed change in a cue–outcome association, but the study tested mice and footshock, not human participants and pain outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Sensitivity to painful stimulation can vary over time.

    “Our interest in how perception changes across the experimental session was motivated by the observation that sensitivity to painful stimulation can vary over time15,16,28,29.”

    From Boundary effects of expectation in human pain perception (2019) · cites this paper as [16]

    The ‘Aversive prediction errors in amygdala hemodynamic responses’ section reports that mice’s amygdala responses to footshock decreased over three days of training. But the ‘Aversive prediction error signals in theta oscillations’ section attributes that decrease to expectation rather than simple habituation; the paper does not measure whether sensitivity to painful stimulation changed over time. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McHugh, S. B., Barkus, C., Huber, A., Capitao, L., Lima, J., Lowry, J. P., & Bannerman, D. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • National University of Ireland, Maynooth (IE)
Venue
Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2014-07-02
Volume
34
Issue
27
Pages
9024-9033
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2099499810
Cited by
68
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3
FWCI
3.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (087736, 074385)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
basolateral amygdala, fear conditioning, temporal difference learning, footshock, auditory cues, hemodynamic response, theta oscillations, aversive learning, mice
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Amygdala, Animals, Avoidance Learning, Conditioning, Classical, Discrimination Learning, Electroshock, Fear, Hemodynamics, Locomotion, Male, Mice, Inbred CBA, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Theta Rhythm, Freezing Reaction, Cataleptic, Mice, Anticipation, Psychological

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