S an intermediate level SCR (CS?> Nov: t(18) ?1.61; P ?0.12; Nov > CS

S an intermediate level SCR (CS?> Nov: t(18) ?1.61; P ?0.12; Nov > CS? t(18) ?2.23; P ?0.04).Distinct response profiles in amygdala subregionsNext, we wanted to determine whether novelty and fear activate similar subregions within the amygdala. To do so, we performed a 3 (CS?vs CS?vs Novel) ?3 (Centromedial vs Interspersed vs Laterobasal) repeated measures ANOVA, and found a AUY922MedChemExpress AUY922 significant main effect for subregion (F(2,36) ?3.87; P ?0.03) and a significant CS ?subregion interaction (F(4,72) ?2.85; P ?0.03). The results from this analysis suggest that the three amygdala subregions have distinct response profiles, which we verified using pairwise statistics (Figure 4). The laterobasal region BX795 side effects seemed to be responding to all CS types (post hoc ps > 0.05). The interspersed tissue seemed to be responding to only the salient stimulus types (one-way repeated measures ANOVA: F(2,36) ?3.31; P ?0.05; CS ?> CS? t(35) ?2.46; P ?0.02; NOV > CS? t(35) ?2.29; P ?0.03). The centromedial region seemed to be responding only to the CS?(Planned comparison, CS?> NOV and CS? F(1,54) ?3.96; P ?0.05).ResultsUCS expectancyIn order to determine whether the participants were able to explicitly learn the picture shock contingencies, we recorded their UCS expectancy on each trial. We performed a 3 (CS?vs CS?vs Novel) ?5 (Trial) repeated measures ANOVA, and found a significant main effect for CS (F(2,36) ?82.81; P < 0.01) and a significant CS ?Trial interaction (F(8,144) ?3.27; P < 0.01). The main effect for CS type suggests that subjects expected the shock on the CS?presentations, expected no shock on the CS?presentations, and were unsure whether or not to expect the shock on the novel stimulus presentations (Figure 3A). We performed the corresponding pairwise t-tests to support this conclusion (CS?> CS? t(18) ?10.90; P < 0.01; CS ?> Nov: t(18) ?8.07; P < 0.01; Nov > CS? t(18) ?6.18; P < 0.01).DiscussionIn this experiment, we measured the effect of novelty and fear on behavior and amygdala BOLD responses. We subdivided the amygdala into three distinct subregions based on anatomical connectivity, which we identified on a subject by subject basis. Importantly, the pathways used to subdivide the amygdala are consistent with the known anatomical connectivity of the amygdala (Krettek and Price, 1977; Amaral et al., 1992; Price, 2003). The laterobasal subregion shared white matter pathways with the visual cortex and responded to all stimulus categories. The centromedial subregion shared white matter pathways with the diencephalon and responded only to stimuli that predicted an aversive outcome. The interspersed tissue was connected with neither the visual cortex nor the diencephalon. This region responded both to novel stimuli, and stimuli that predicted an aversive outcome. Interestingly, these results suggest that these three subregions within the amygdala represent different nodes within an information processing circuit, and that the activation of these different subregions may represent the flow of information through the amygdala. According to this model, information enters the amygdala through theSkin conductance responsesIn order to determine whether the participants were able to implicitly learn the picture shock contingencies, we recorded their SCRs on each trial. We performed a 3 (CS?vs CS?vs Novel) ?5 (Trial) repeated measures ANOVA, and found a significant main effect for CS (F(2,36) ?6.49; P < 0.01) and a significant main effect for Trial (F(8,72) ?12.46; P < 0.S an intermediate level SCR (CS?> Nov: t(18) ?1.61; P ?0.12; Nov > CS? t(18) ?2.23; P ?0.04).Distinct response profiles in amygdala subregionsNext, we wanted to determine whether novelty and fear activate similar subregions within the amygdala. To do so, we performed a 3 (CS?vs CS?vs Novel) ?3 (Centromedial vs Interspersed vs Laterobasal) repeated measures ANOVA, and found a significant main effect for subregion (F(2,36) ?3.87; P ?0.03) and a significant CS ?subregion interaction (F(4,72) ?2.85; P ?0.03). The results from this analysis suggest that the three amygdala subregions have distinct response profiles, which we verified using pairwise statistics (Figure 4). The laterobasal region seemed to be responding to all CS types (post hoc ps > 0.05). The interspersed tissue seemed to be responding to only the salient stimulus types (one-way repeated measures ANOVA: F(2,36) ?3.31; P ?0.05; CS ?> CS? t(35) ?2.46; P ?0.02; NOV > CS? t(35) ?2.29; P ?0.03). The centromedial region seemed to be responding only to the CS?(Planned comparison, CS?> NOV and CS? F(1,54) ?3.96; P ?0.05).ResultsUCS expectancyIn order to determine whether the participants were able to explicitly learn the picture shock contingencies, we recorded their UCS expectancy on each trial. We performed a 3 (CS?vs CS?vs Novel) ?5 (Trial) repeated measures ANOVA, and found a significant main effect for CS (F(2,36) ?82.81; P < 0.01) and a significant CS ?Trial interaction (F(8,144) ?3.27; P < 0.01). The main effect for CS type suggests that subjects expected the shock on the CS?presentations, expected no shock on the CS?presentations, and were unsure whether or not to expect the shock on the novel stimulus presentations (Figure 3A). We performed the corresponding pairwise t-tests to support this conclusion (CS?> CS? t(18) ?10.90; P < 0.01; CS ?> Nov: t(18) ?8.07; P < 0.01; Nov > CS? t(18) ?6.18; P < 0.01).DiscussionIn this experiment, we measured the effect of novelty and fear on behavior and amygdala BOLD responses. We subdivided the amygdala into three distinct subregions based on anatomical connectivity, which we identified on a subject by subject basis. Importantly, the pathways used to subdivide the amygdala are consistent with the known anatomical connectivity of the amygdala (Krettek and Price, 1977; Amaral et al., 1992; Price, 2003). The laterobasal subregion shared white matter pathways with the visual cortex and responded to all stimulus categories. The centromedial subregion shared white matter pathways with the diencephalon and responded only to stimuli that predicted an aversive outcome. The interspersed tissue was connected with neither the visual cortex nor the diencephalon. This region responded both to novel stimuli, and stimuli that predicted an aversive outcome. Interestingly, these results suggest that these three subregions within the amygdala represent different nodes within an information processing circuit, and that the activation of these different subregions may represent the flow of information through the amygdala. According to this model, information enters the amygdala through theSkin conductance responsesIn order to determine whether the participants were able to implicitly learn the picture shock contingencies, we recorded their SCRs on each trial. We performed a 3 (CS?vs CS?vs Novel) ?5 (Trial) repeated measures ANOVA, and found a significant main effect for CS (F(2,36) ?6.49; P < 0.01) and a significant main effect for Trial (F(8,72) ?12.46; P < 0.