Defensive freezing sharpens threat-reward information processing during approach-avoidance decision making

bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)

Abstract

Abstract People regularly face approach-avoidance dilemmas which require minimization of potential threat whilst maximizing potential reward. Defensive reactions to threat, such as transient states of freezing, influence integration of reward/threat information in the dorsal Anterior Cingulate Cortex (dACC). However, the mechanism of this integration between internal state and external value (state-value integration) remains unknown. Here, we decoded approach-avoidance decisions under threat using high-precision magnetoencephalography (MEG). Threat-induced cardiac deceleration (indicative of defensive freezing) was trial-by-trial associated with more pronounced effects of reward and threat magnitudes on approach-avoidance choices. Time-resolved decoding of threat-reward information from neural signals predicted approach-avoidance choices several seconds before the actual response. Crucially, during freezing, 6-12 Hz coherence between threat-reward information and dACC neural activity increased, suggesting that defensive freezing sharpens threat/reward processing during approach-avoidance decision making. These findings provide a potential neural mechanism by which threat-induced freezing can facilitate information integration, essential for optimal decision making under threat.

Authors 5

1. Felix H. Klaassen corresponding

   Radboud University Nijmegen · Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour

   Affiliation as printed

   Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen;

   Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen

2. Bob Bramson

   Radboud University Nijmegen · Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour

   Affiliation as printed

   Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen;

   Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen

3. Jan‐Mathijs Schoffelen

   Radboud University Nijmegen · Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour

   Affiliation as printed

   Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen;

   Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen

4. Lycia D. de Voogd Aachen Institute of Psychology and Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition

   Leiden University

   Affiliation as printed

   Leiden University, Institute of Psychology and Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition (LIBC);

   Leiden University, Institute of Psychology and Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition (LIBC)

5. Karin Roelofs

   Radboud University Nijmegen · Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour

   Affiliation as printed

   Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University