Figure 2.

The effects of permanent and temporary manipulations of the antOFC and vlPFC on the responsivity of marmosets to a variety of fear and anxiety-inducing stimuli. In (A) both lesioned groups, post-surgery, took the same number of sessions as controls to regain discriminative conditioned responding to a CS associated with aversive loud noise (i “Retention”). Following exposure to one session of partial extinction, however, whereas controls adapted their responding and took many sessions to then regain their discriminative responding (i “Recovery”), the lesioned groups maintained strong discriminative conditioning throughout (ii). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. Figures redrawn from Agustín-Pavón et al. (2012). In (B) pale gray dots represent the emotionality and coping strategy component scores of individual marmosets in the colony in response to a human intruder (HIT) and a model snake. Emotionality scores show a significant positive relationship such that animals scoring high on the HIT, score high on the Snake too and vice versa. Superimposed on these scores are the average scores of each of the lesioned and control groups. Both lesioned groups showed greater emotionality scores on the HIT and snake test whilst their coping strategies differed across the two tests. The vlPFC lesioned group displayed a higher, more active coping strategy on the HIT but both antOFC and vlPFC lesioned groups displayed a lower, more passive strategy score on the Snake, compared to controls. Data taken and redrawn from Agustín-Pavón et al. (2012) and Shiba et al. (2015). In (C) the effect of temporary inactivation of the antOFC and vlPFC on the effects of cost-benefit decision making are displayed. Inactivation of the vlPFC had no effect on response bias during reward only sessions (i, left side) but in the presence of punishment (Test Day 1) significantly increased responding away from punishment (i, right side). antOFC inactivations also had no effect on response bias on reward only sessions but enhanced responding away from the punished side the day after having received punishment (Test Day 2). The biases in both cases were ameliorated with concomitant treatment with the anxiolytic, diazepam (ii). The antOFC-induced punishment bias on the day after punishment was blocked by inactivation on Test Day 2 of the amygdala (Amyg) bilaterally, anterior hippocampus (Hipp) bilaterally, or amygdala and hippocampus unilaterally on opposite sides of the hemisphere (A-H disconnection; iii). The key below each graph in (C) indicates when and where infusions were made and whether punishment was present or not. *p < 0.05 on square-root transformed data. Figures redrawn from Clarke et al. (2015).