Research  The brain’s primitive ‘fear center’ is actually a sophisticated mediator

#1
C C Offline
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1117531

INTRO: A Dartmouth study challenges the conventional view that the amygdala—the two-sided structure deep in the brain involved in emotion, learning, and decision making—is simply the brain's primitive “fear center,” reflexively driving us to avoid the things we fear, from high places and tight spaces to spiders and large crowds.

The researchers report in Nature Communications that the amygdala is far more complex, acting as a sophisticated arbiter to help the brain choose between competing strategies for learning and decision-making.

“Historically, the amygdala has been studied from the perspective of fear learning, and it has been generalized to reward learning,” says Jae Hyung Woo, a PhD candidate in the psychological and brain sciences and the study’s first author. “Our main hypothesis was that it must have other functions given its extensive connections to the rest of the brain.”

The amygdala’s other functions seem to surface under uncertainty, when the brain is faced with two kinds of learning strategies in pursuing a reward. In the study, the researchers give the example of brewing a cup of coffee with an unfamiliar machine.

Under an action-based approach, you could try what you did the last time you operated a similar machine and press the button that worked before. Under a stimulus-based approach, by contrast, you could focus on a defining feature, like the machine’s blinking light, and select that feature.

“People have labeled the amygdala as an emotional fear system, but there is nothing really primitive in the brain, even when you talk about this area,” says Alireza Soltani, the study’s senior author and associate professor of psychological and brain sciences at Dartmouth.

“The key distinction is whether learning should be tied to a motor action or the identity of the stimulus,” Soltani says. “Action-based learning involves considering the specific motor movements that can lead to a reward, while stimulus-based learning can be more flexible because it allows you to evaluate and select a desired stimulus without immediately considering the actions needed to get there.”

Because these two learning modes happen simultaneously, the researchers hypothesized that there should be a region in the brain that mediates between them to choose the path most likely to lead to the better outcome. A damaged amygdala appears to disrupt this mediation process, the researchers found, suggesting that it plays this critical role.

The research team developed computational models based on reinforcement learning to track how the brain assigns weight to action and stimulus-based learning strategies when it’s unclear which strategy is best-suited for the task. They found that the amygdala pivots between the two systems at the start, but that as it gathers more information, it picks the system with the more reliable model.

When the amygdala was damaged, however, they found that arbitration became more random as the brain struggled to update its assessment of which learning system would be most useful. The brain also tended to default toward action-based learning from the outset, they found, impairing its ability to arbitrate between the two systems. As a result, behavior became more rigid overall.

“A healthy amygdala promotes exploration between alternative models and as a result, can make you choose something you wouldn’t otherwise choose, and you can learn from that,” Soltani says.

“Ultimately, successful learning involves finding a more reliable model,” he says. Their results could help explain why previous studies found that amygdala damage impaired stimulus learning in some cases but improved it in others... (MORE - details, no ads)
Reply
#2
Syne Offline
(Yesterday 06:56 PM)C C Wrote: ...
The researchers report in Nature Communications that the amygdala is far more complex, acting as a sophisticated arbiter to help the brain choose between competing strategies for learning and decision-making.
...
The research team developed computational models based on reinforcement learning to track how the brain assigns weight to action and stimulus-based learning strategies when it’s unclear which strategy is best-suited for the task. They found that the amygdala pivots between the two systems at the start, but that as it gathers more information, it picks the system with the more reliable model.
...

This is why larger, more developed amygdalae, with more brain connections, found in conservatives is a benefit.
Reply
#3
confused2 Offline
I'm reminded of two cats .. one smart and one stupid. When the owner shouted "Dinner time!" the stupid cat was always first to arrive. This result was attributed to the smart cat having a sophisticated life with many competing priorities (territory etc) whereas the stupid cat had no interest in anything other than food.

'Sophistication' may not be a good thing in a democracy (according to Voltaire? .. ???) .. once people start voting for what they think other people want instead of what they actually want - things start to fall apart.
Reply
#4
Syne Offline

Voltaire was a staunch critic of democracy, viewing it as a system that risks enabling the "idiocy of the masses". Instead, he advocated for enlightened despotism, where a rational monarch, advised by philosophers, would protect individual freedoms. Voltaire believed the uneducated masses were too selfish for self-governance.
- Google AI

Seems the opposite of sophistication... and democracy. He definitely didn't believe the people should vote for their own selfish desires.
Reply
#5
confused2 Offline
So not Voltaire.

Standing up in front of a Berlin crowd and promising to make the nation uber alles great is really going to appeal to the smart ones in the crowd.
Reply
#6
C C Offline
(Philosopher kings...) Governance by experts, rather than direct democracy of the hoi polloi. Though what kind of "experts" matters.

Both classic Marxism and rehabilitated Neo-Marxism boil down to rule by literary intellectuals and their enforcing bureaucrats. While feigning to be representatives of the will and interests of the proletariat (or the marginalized population groups that replace the proles in contemporary critical theory offshoots).

Whereas progressivism allows more varied technocracy. Elevating input from scientists, engineers, capitalist sages, technicians, etc to same level of humanities scholars and far-left intelligentsia.
Reply
#7
Syne Offline
(3 hours ago)confused2 Wrote: So not Voltaire.

Standing up in front of a Berlin crowd and promising to make the nation uber alles great is really going to appeal to the smart ones in the crowd.

Prosperity should be universally appealing. Might need some antidepressants if you think otherwise.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Soft robot eases fear of injections + Left & right have lost their minds over Covid C C 0 396 Oct 24, 2022 01:26 AM
Last Post: C C
  Pessimism brain center found Magical Realist 1 644 Aug 13, 2018 06:55 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)