Neural Representation of Associative Threat Learning in Pulvinar Divisions, Lateral Geniculate Nucleus, and Mediodorsal Thalamus in Humans
Badarnee, M.; Wen, Z.; Moallem, B. I.; Maren, S.; Milad, M. R.
Show abstract
Understanding the neural mechanisms underlying associative threat learning is essential for advancing behavioral models of threat and adaptation. We investigated distinct activation patterns across thalamic pulvinar divisions, lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN), and mediodorsal thalamus (MD) during the acquisition of associative threat learning in the MRI. The anterior pulvinar and MD exhibited parallel activation patterns, which we interpret as relating to automatic and more deliberative learning processes. Additionally, our findings suggest a hierarchical pulvinar organization during fear conditioning, in which coordinated activation among inferior, lateral, medial, and anterior divisions may support the integration of threat-related information. Pulvinar divisions and the MD showed activation during extinction learning and exhibited patterns consistent with salience processing and safety-threat memory expression during extinction recall and threat renewal. LGN activation patterns during threat learning were consistent with feedforward processing of visual information. This study extends dominant brain models of threat learning and memory, reframing our understanding of distinct thalamic roles in these psychological processes.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Time-dependent neural arbitration between cue associative and episodic fear memories 97%
- Dynamically shifting from compositional to conjunctive brain representations supports cognitive task learning 96%
- Dynamic targeting enables domain-general inhibitory control over action and thought by the prefrontal cortex. 95%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.