Using signals associated with safety in avoidance learning: computational model of sex differences

Behavioral outputs and overlapping circuits between conditional fear and active avoidance

Aversive learning can produce a wide variety of defensive behavioral responses depending on the circumstances, ranging from reactive responses like freezing to proactive avoidance responses. While most of this initial learning is behaviorally supported by an expectancy of an aversive outcome and neurally supported by activity within the basolateral amygdala, activity in other brain regions become necessary for the execution of defensive strategies that emerge in other aversive learning paradigms such as active avoidance. Here, we review the neural circuits that support both reactive and proactive defensive behaviors that are motivated by aversive learning, and identify commonalities between the neural substrates of these distinct (and often exclusive) behavioral strategies.

The study of active avoidance: A platform for discussion

Traditional active avoidance tasks have advanced the field of aversive learning and memory for decades and are useful for studying simple avoidance responses in isolation; however, these tasks have limited clinical relevance because they do not model several key features of clinical avoidance. In contrast, platform-mediated avoidance (PMA) more closely resembles clinical avoidance because the response i) is associated with an unambiguous safe location, ii) is not associated with an artificial termination of the warning signal, and iii) is associated with a decision-based appetitive cost. Recent findings on the neuronal circuits of PMA have confirmed that amygdala-striatal circuits are essential for avoidance. In PMA, however, the prelimbic cortex facilitates the avoidance response early during the warning signal, perhaps through disinhibition of the striatum. Future studies on avoidance should account for additional factors such as sex differences and social interactions that will advance our understanding of maladaptive avoidance contributing to neuropsychiatric disorders.

Differential use of danger and safety signals in an animal model of anxiety vulnerability: The behavioral economics of avoidance

Differential processing of danger and safety signals may underlie symptoms of anxiety disorders and posttraumatic stress disorder. One symptom common to these disorders is pathological avoidance. The present study examined whether danger and safety signals influence avoidance differently in anxiety-vulnerable Wistar-Kyoto (WKY) rats and Sprague Dawley (SD) rats. SD and WKY rats were tested in a novel progressive ratio avoidance task with and without danger or safety signals. Two components of reinforcement, hedonic value and motivation, were determined by fitting an exponentiated demand equation to the data. Hedonic value of avoidance did not differ between SD and WKY rats, but WKY rats had greater motivation to avoid than SD rats. Removal of the safety signal reduced motivation to avoid in SD, but not WKY, rats. Removal of the danger signal did not alter avoidance in either strain. When danger and safety signals were presented simultaneously, WKY rats responded to the danger signals, whereas SD rats responded to the safety signal. The results provide evidence that 1) safety signals enhance motivation to avoid in SD rats, 2) both danger and safety signals influence motivation in WKY rats, and 3) danger signals take precedence over safety signals when presented simultaneously in WKY rats. Thus, anxiety vulnerability is associated with preferential use of danger signals to motivate avoidance. The differential use of danger and safety signals has important implications for the etiology and treatment of pathological avoidance in anxiety disorders and posttraumatic stress disorder.