.01). The main effect for CS typeFig. 3. Subjects showed evidence of implicit

.01). The main effect for CS typeFig. 3. Subjects showed evidence of implicit and explicit conditional learning. (A) Subjects expected the shock on CS?trials, expected no shock on CS?trials, and were unsure whether to expect the shock on Novel trials. (B) Subjects showed larger skin conductance responses (SCRs) to the CS?and Novel stimuli than to the CS? (bars ?M 6 SEM, *P 0.05)N. L. Balderston et al.|Fig. 4. Subregions of the amygdala show distinct patterns of activity. The laterobasal subregion (purple arrows) 6-Methoxybaicalein biological activity responds to all stimulus types. The interspersed tissue (grey arrows) responds to salient stimulus types (CS ?and Novel). The centromedial subregion (yellow arrows) responds only to stimulus types that predict an aversive outcome (CS?. Colored arrows indicate region of anatomical connectivity (purple ?visual cortex; grey ?no connectivity; yellow ?diencephalon). (bars ?M 6 SEM, *P 0.05)spontaneously using the eye region of the face to identify fearful facial expressions (Kennedy and Adolphs, 2010). In addition to faces, other types of stimuli have been shown to receive preferential processing by the amygdala. For instance, snakes and spiders have been shown to evoke amygdala response with and without awareness (Britton et al., 2006; Larson et al., 2006; Ahs et al., 2009; Larson et al., 2009; Nili et al., 2010). Snakes and spiders also tend to capture attention (Kindt and Brosschot, 1997; Quinagolide (hydrochloride) biological activity Miltner et al., 2004; Van Strien et al., 2009), and pop out in complex visual displays (Larson et al., 2007). They can support fear ?learning in the absence of awareness (Ohman and Soares, 1993; Flykt et al., 2007), and learning with these types of stimuli typically leads to a stronger fear memory that is more difficult to dis?tinguish (Fredrikson et al., 1976; Ohman et al., 1976; Hugdahl and ?Ohman, 1980). The amygdala shares reciprocal connections with many levels of the ventral visual pathway, supporting the notion that it is involved in visual processing (Sah et al., 2003). Our results suggest that this feature level processing occurs in the laterobasal subregion.The interspersed tissue: evaluationIn contrast to those theories that suggest the amygdala is specialized for visual processing, others have suggested that the amygdala plays a major role in the identification of behaviorally relevant stimuli or events, independent of specific visual features (Sander et al., 2003). Support for these theories comes from studies showing that the amygdala responds to psychological features independent of perceptual features (Schwartz et al., 2003; Herry et al., 2007; Whalen, 2007; Ousdal et al., 2008; Weierich et al., 2010; Blackford et al., 2010; Balderston et al., 2011). In one study in mice and humans, Herry et al. (2007) showed that a series of unpredictable tones lead to immediate early gene expression and increases in BOLD activity, compared to a series of predictable tones. In several recent studies, our lab and others have shown that the amygdala responds to novel stimuli, independent of emotional content (Schwartz et al., 2003; Blackford et al., 2010; Weierich et al., 2010; Balderston et al., 2011). Although it is clear that the amygdala plays a key role in the expression of emotion, the novelty evoked amygdala responses that we have observed are not necessarily accompanied by increases in arousal, suggesting that fear expression is not a sufficient explanation of amygdala function. These results suggest that defining amygdala function in terms..01). The main effect for CS typeFig. 3. Subjects showed evidence of implicit and explicit conditional learning. (A) Subjects expected the shock on CS?trials, expected no shock on CS?trials, and were unsure whether to expect the shock on Novel trials. (B) Subjects showed larger skin conductance responses (SCRs) to the CS?and Novel stimuli than to the CS? (bars ?M 6 SEM, *P 0.05)N. L. Balderston et al.|Fig. 4. Subregions of the amygdala show distinct patterns of activity. The laterobasal subregion (purple arrows) responds to all stimulus types. The interspersed tissue (grey arrows) responds to salient stimulus types (CS ?and Novel). The centromedial subregion (yellow arrows) responds only to stimulus types that predict an aversive outcome (CS?. Colored arrows indicate region of anatomical connectivity (purple ?visual cortex; grey ?no connectivity; yellow ?diencephalon). (bars ?M 6 SEM, *P 0.05)spontaneously using the eye region of the face to identify fearful facial expressions (Kennedy and Adolphs, 2010). In addition to faces, other types of stimuli have been shown to receive preferential processing by the amygdala. For instance, snakes and spiders have been shown to evoke amygdala response with and without awareness (Britton et al., 2006; Larson et al., 2006; Ahs et al., 2009; Larson et al., 2009; Nili et al., 2010). Snakes and spiders also tend to capture attention (Kindt and Brosschot, 1997; Miltner et al., 2004; Van Strien et al., 2009), and pop out in complex visual displays (Larson et al., 2007). They can support fear ?learning in the absence of awareness (Ohman and Soares, 1993; Flykt et al., 2007), and learning with these types of stimuli typically leads to a stronger fear memory that is more difficult to dis?tinguish (Fredrikson et al., 1976; Ohman et al., 1976; Hugdahl and ?Ohman, 1980). The amygdala shares reciprocal connections with many levels of the ventral visual pathway, supporting the notion that it is involved in visual processing (Sah et al., 2003). Our results suggest that this feature level processing occurs in the laterobasal subregion.The interspersed tissue: evaluationIn contrast to those theories that suggest the amygdala is specialized for visual processing, others have suggested that the amygdala plays a major role in the identification of behaviorally relevant stimuli or events, independent of specific visual features (Sander et al., 2003). Support for these theories comes from studies showing that the amygdala responds to psychological features independent of perceptual features (Schwartz et al., 2003; Herry et al., 2007; Whalen, 2007; Ousdal et al., 2008; Weierich et al., 2010; Blackford et al., 2010; Balderston et al., 2011). In one study in mice and humans, Herry et al. (2007) showed that a series of unpredictable tones lead to immediate early gene expression and increases in BOLD activity, compared to a series of predictable tones. In several recent studies, our lab and others have shown that the amygdala responds to novel stimuli, independent of emotional content (Schwartz et al., 2003; Blackford et al., 2010; Weierich et al., 2010; Balderston et al., 2011). Although it is clear that the amygdala plays a key role in the expression of emotion, the novelty evoked amygdala responses that we have observed are not necessarily accompanied by increases in arousal, suggesting that fear expression is not a sufficient explanation of amygdala function. These results suggest that defining amygdala function in terms.