Neuroscience of Emotions & Tools for Improving Emotion Regulation | Dr. Ralph Adolphs
Ralph Adolphs explains how the brain creates emotions including fear, joy, and awe, and discusses evidence-based approaches to emotion regulation. The episode connects neural mechanisms with attention, decision-making, and bodily state.
Brain-body interactions that modulate fear
In most animals including in humans, emotions occur together with changes in the body, such as variations in breathing or heart rate, sweaty palms, or facial expressions. It has been suggested that this interoceptive information acts as a feedback signal to the brain, enabling adaptive modulation of emotions that is essential for survival. As such, fear, one of our basic emotions, must be kept in a functional balance to minimize risk-taking while allowing for the pursuit of essential needs. However, the neural mechanisms underlying this adaptive modulation of fear remain poorly understood. In this talk, I want to present and discuss the data from my PhD work where we uncover a crucial role for the interoceptive insular cortex in detecting changes in heart rate to maintain an equilibrium between the extinction and maintenance of fear memories in mice.
Dynamical population coding during defensive behaviours in prefrontal circuits
Coping with threatening situations requires both identifying stimuli predicting danger and selecting adaptive behavioral responses in order to survive. The dorso medial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC) is a critical structure involved in the regulation of threat-related behaviour, yet it is still largely unclear how threat-predicting stimuli and defensive behaviours are associated within prefrontal networks in order to successfully drive adaptive responses. To address these questions, we used a combination of extracellular recordings, neuronal decoding approaches, and optogenetic manipulations to show that threat representations and the initiation of avoidance behaviour are dynamically encoded in the overall population activity of dmPFC neurons. These data indicate that although dmPFC population activity at stimulus onset encodes sustained threat representations and discriminates threat- from non-threat cues, it does not predict action outcome. In contrast, transient dmPFC population activity prior to action initiation reliably predicts avoided from non-avoided trials. Accordingly, optogenetic inhibition of prefrontal activity critically constrained the selection of adaptive defensive responses in a time-dependent manner. These results reveal that the adaptive selection of active fear responses relies on a dynamic process of information linking threats with defensive actions unfolding within prefrontal networks.
As soon as there was life there was danger
Organisms face challenges to survival throughout life. When we freeze or flee in danger, we often feel fear. Tracing the deep history of danger gives a different perspective. The first cells living billions of years ago had to detect and respond to danger in order to survive. Life is about not being dead, and behavior is a major way that organisms hold death off. Although behavior does not require a nervous system, complex organisms have brain circuits for detecting and responding to danger, the deep roots of which go back to the first cells. But these circuits do not make fear, and fear is not the cause of why we freeze or flee. Fear a human invention; a construct we use to account for what happens in our minds when we become aware that we are in harm’s way. This requires a brain that can personally know that it existed in the past, that it is the entity that might be harmed in the present, and that it will cease to exist it the future. If other animals have conscious experiences, they cannot have the kinds of conscious experiences we have because they do not have the kinds of brains we have. This is not meant as a denial of animal consciousness; it is simply a statement about the fact that every species has a different brain. Nor is it a declaration about the wonders of the human brain, since we have done some wonderful, but also horrific, things with our brains. In fact, we are on the way to a climatic disaster that will not, as some suggest, destroy the Earth. But it will make it inhabitable for our kind, and other organisms with high energy demands. Bacteria have made it for billions of years and will likely be fine. The rest is up for grabs, and, in a very real sense, up to us.
Contrasting neuronal circuits driving reactive and cognitive fear
The last decade in the field of neuroscience has been marked by intense debate on the meaning of the term fear. Whereas some have argued that fear (as well as other emotions) relies on cognitive capacities that are unique to humans, others view it as a negative state constructed from essential building blocks. This latter definition posits that fear states are associated with varying readouts that one could consider to be parallel processes or serial events tied to a specific hierarchy. Within this framework, innate defensive behaviors are considered to be common displays of fear states that lie under the control of hard-wired brain circuits. As a general rule, these defensive behaviors can be classified as either reactive or cognitive based on a thread imminence continuum. However, while evidence of the neuronal circuits that lead to these divergent behavioral strategies has accrued over the last decades, most literature has considered these responses in isolation. As a result, important misconceptions have arisen regarding how fear circuits are distributed in the brain and the contribution of specific nodes within these circuits to defensive behaviors. To mitigate the status quo, I will conduct a systematic comparison of brain circuits driving the expression of freezing and active avoidance behavior, which I will use as well-studied proxies of reactive and cognitive fear, respectively. In addition, I propose that by integrating associative information with interoceptive and exteroceptive signals the central nucleus of the amygdala plays a crucial role in biasing the selection of defensive behaviors.
Anterior Cingulate inputs to nucleus accumbens control the social transfer of pain and analgesia
Empathy plays a critical role in social interactions, and many species, including rodents, display evolutionarily conserved behavioral antecedents of empathy. In both humans and rodents, the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) encodes information about the affective state of others. However, little is known about which downstream targets of the ACC contribute to empathy behaviors. We optimized a protocol for the social transfer of pain behavior in mice and compared the ACC-dependent neural circuitry responsible for this behavior with the neural circuitry required for the social transfer of two related states: analgesia and fear. We found that a 1-hour social interaction between a bystander mouse and a cagemate experiencing inflammatory pain led to congruent mechanical hyperalgesia in the bystander. This social transfer led to activation of neurons in the ACC and several downstream targets, including the nucleus accumbens (NAc), which was revealed by monosynaptic rabies virus tracing to be directly connected to the ACC. Bidirectional manipulation of activity in ACC-to-NAc inputs influenced the acquisition of socially transferred pain. Further, the social transfer of analgesia also depended upon ACC-NAc inputs. By contrast, the social transfer of fear instead required activity in ACC projections to the basolateral amygdala. This shows that mice rapidly adopt the sensory-affective state of a social partner, regardless of the valance of the information (pain, fear, or pain relief). We find that the ACC generates specific and appropriate empathic behavioral responses through distinct downstream targets. More sophisticated understanding of evolutionarily conserved brain mechanisms of empathy will also expedite the development of new therapies for the empathy-related deficits associated with a broad range of neuropsychiatric disorders.