| Literature DB >> 28402515 |
Juliana Cavalli1, Michaela Ruttorf2, Mario Rosero Pahi1, Francesca Zidda1, Herta Flor1, Frauke Nees1.
Abstract
Fear acquisition and extinction have been demonstrated as core mechanisms for the development and maintenance of mental disorders, with different contributions of processing cues vs contexts. The hypothalamic peptide oxytocin (OXT) may have a prominent role in this context, as it has been shown to affect fear learning. However, investigations have focused on cue conditioning, and fear extinction. Its differential role for cue and context fear acquisition is still not known. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo (PLC)-controlled design, we administered an intranasal dose of OXT or PLC before the acquisition of cue and context fear conditioning in healthy individuals (n = 52), and assessed brain responses, skin conductance responses and self-reports (valence/arousal/contingency). OXT compared with PLC significantly induced decreased responses in the nucleus accumbens during early cue and context acquisition, and decreased responses of the anterior cingulate cortex and insula during early as well as increased hippocampal response during late context, but not cue acquisition. The OXT group additionally showed significantly higher arousal in late cue and context acquisition. OXT modulates various aspects of cue and context conditioning, which is relevant from a mechanism-based perspective and might have implications for the treatment of fear and anxiety.Entities:
Keywords: context; cue; fear conditioning; magnetic resonance imaging; oxytocin
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28402515 PMCID: PMC5472122 DOI: 10.1093/scan/nsx028
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci ISSN: 1749-5016 Impact factor: 3.436
Overview on mean values (M) and standard deviation (SD) of anxiety and depression in the treatment groups (PLC and OXT)
| Questionnaires | PLC [M(SD)] | OXT [M(SD)] | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADS | 12.44(5.38) 27 | 15.13(9.12) 25 | n.s. |
| STAI | 39.00(8.62) 27 | 39.52(8.72) 25 | n.s. |
Note: ADS, Center for Epidemiological studies Depression Scale; STAI, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory; n.s., non-significant.
Fig. 1.SCRs expressed by mean values (M) and s.d. in early and late acquisition for both treatment group (PLC and OXT). Note: CS+, conditioned stimulus paired; CS−, conditioned stimulus unpaired.
Fig. 2.Self-report data related to arousal, valence and contingency, acquired immediately after the early and late acquisition in (A) cue conditioning and (B) context conditioning. *P < 0.05 in comparison to the CS−. Note: For all measures (arousal, valence and contingency ratings) in both paradigms (cue and context conditioning) there was a significant difference between the CS+ and the CS− in the early [arousal: F(1,47) = 32.073, P < 0.001; valence: F(1,47) = 36.754, P < 0.001; contingency: F(1,47) = 83.888, P < 0.001] and late acquisition [arousal: F(1,49) = 58.095, P < 0.001; valence: F(1,49) = 30.407, P = 0.002; contingency: F(1,49) = 117.170, P < 0.001]. In these cases, higher arousal, valence and contingency ratings were observed for CS+ compared with CS−.
Fig. 3.Brain responses in early acquisition phase (group comparison OXT vs PLC using the contrast CS + > CS− and cue vs context conditioning as factor): the OXT group showed reduced responses in nucleus accumbens compared with the PLC group during both cue and context conditioning.
Fig. 4.Brain responses in early acquisition phase (group comparison OXT vs PLC using the contrast CS + > CS− and cue vs context conditioning as factor): the OXT group showed reduced response in the ACC and the insula compared with the PLC group during context conditioning.
Fig. 5.Brain responses in late acquisition phase (group comparison OXT vs PLC using the contrast CS + > CS− and cue vs context conditioning as factor): the OXT group showed an increased response in the hippocampus compared with the PLC group during context conditioning.