Skip to main content
Full access
Letters to the Editor
Published Online: 1 November 2017

The Danger of LeDoux and Pine’s Two-System Framework for Fear

To the Editor: The Review and Overview article by LeDoux and Pine (1), published in the November 2016 issue of the Journal, proposes that the subjective emotion of fear and its associated behavioral and physiological responses (e.g., increased freezing and respiration) emerge from distinct neuronal circuits. As a consequence, the authors argue that behavioral and physiological defense responses should not be used to study the subjective emotion of fear. Moreover, they claim that conflation of subjective and behavioral and physiological measures of fear has hampered progress in the treatment of anxiety disorders. However, we feel that this framework would reverse legitimate progress that has been made toward improving interventions for these conditions.
Contrary to LeDoux and Pine’s claim that subjective and behavioral and physiological fear responses are orthogonal, there is substantial evidence indicating that they are correlated and represent an integrated response. For example, physiological responses to fear-evoking stimuli covary with subjective ratings of fear across the acquisition, extinction, and re-emergence of a fear memory (24), and subjective trait-like assessments of anxiety are correlated with autonomic responses (4, 5). Furthermore, patients with anxiety disorders report both high subjective fear and behavioral and physiological fear responses (6), indicating that these responses track one another across the range of health and disease states, although they may have different thresholds for activation. Lastly, there is no evidence that the subjective emotion of fear can be experienced in the absence of concomitant behavioral and physiological responses, suggesting that these responses are inseparable and emerge from a common neuronal circuit. This is in line with the findings that individuals with bilateral amygdala lesions have both reduced subjective and behavioral and physiological responses to threatening stimuli (7, 8). Although the amygdala is unlikely to be the sole locus of fear genesis, data showing that its perturbation dramatically alters a range of fear responses clearly point to it being a part of a larger hub for coordinating an integrated fear response that includes behavioral, physiological, and cognitive endpoints. As such, we feel it is misguided to argue that behavioral and physiological defense responses cannot be used to make inferences about the subjective experience of fear.
In addition to the two-system framework being based on a biased view of the literature, the adoption of a two-system framework brings with it ominous implications. If it were to be accepted that the subjective experience of fear emerges from orthogonal brain circuits from those responsible for behavioral and physiological defense responses, we would be required to limit ourselves to the study of subjective report. This is because behavioral and physiological indicators of fear would have no ability to predict subjective experience in humans according to the two-system view. Beyond the fact that studies based on physiological and behavioral measures have actually provided us with the ability to predict the efficacy of both behavioral and pharmacological interventions (9), the tremendous insights into the neurobiology of fear gained from animal studies would be lost. Finally, the shift away from subjective report was prompted by issues of reliability and response bias, its semiquantitative nature, and its restriction to populations capable of language. Returning to an emphasis on subjective report therefore turns psychiatry in the direction of a bleak past.

References

1.
LeDoux JE, Pine DS: Using neuroscience to help understand fear and anxiety: a two-system framework. Am J Psychiatry 2016; 173:1083–1093
2.
Rodriguez BI, Craske MG, Mineka S, et al: Context-specificity of relapse: effects of therapist and environmental context on return of fear. Behav Res Ther 1999; 37:845–862
3.
Lovibond PF, Davis NR, O’Flaherty AS: Protection from extinction in human fear conditioning. Behav Res Ther 2000; 38:967–983
4.
Bitterman ME, Holtzman WH: Conditioning and extinction of the galvanic skin response as a function of anxiety. J Abnorm Psychol 1952; 47:615–623
5.
Thyer BA, Papsdorf JD, Davis R, et al: Autonomic correlates of the subjective anxiety scale. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 1984; 15:3–7
6.
American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2013
7.
Feinstein JS, Adolphs R, Damasio A, et al: The human amygdala and the induction and experience of fear. Curr Biol 2011; 21:34–38
8.
Adolphs R, Tranel D, Damasio AR: The human amygdala in social judgment. Nature 1998; 393:470–474
9.
Bowers ME, Ressler KJ: An overview of translationally informed treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder: animal models of Pavlovian fear conditioning to human clinical trials. Biol Psychiatry 2015; 78:E15–E27

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to American Journal of Psychiatry
Go to American Journal of Psychiatry
American Journal of Psychiatry
Pages: 1120 - 1121
PubMed: 29088929

History

Accepted: August 2017
Published online: 1 November 2017
Published in print: November 01, 2017

Keywords

  1. Fear
  2. Anxiety
  3. Antianxiety Agents
  4. Cognitive Neuroscience
  5. Emotion
  6. Models/Theories Of Psychiatry
  7. Other Aspects Of Psychopharmacology

Authors

Details

Michael S. Fanselow, Ph.D. [email protected]
From the Department of Psychology and the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA, Los Angeles.
Zachary T. Pennington, M.A.
From the Department of Psychology and the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA, Los Angeles.

Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Fanselow ([email protected]).

Funding Information

National Institute of Mental Health10.13039/100000025: F31MH185207-02, RO1MH062122
Supported by the Staglin Music Festival Center for Brain and Behavioral Health and by NIMH grants MH-062122 to Dr. Fanselow and MH-185207-02 to Mr. Pennington.Dr. Fanselow is a board member of and has equity interest in Neurovation. Mr. Pennington reports no financial relationships with commercial interests.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.

Format
Citation style
Style
Copy to clipboard

View Options

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/EPUB

Get Access

Login options

Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.

Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens login
Purchase Options

Purchase this article to access the full text.

PPV Articles - American Journal of Psychiatry

PPV Articles - American Journal of Psychiatry

Not a subscriber?

Subscribe Now / Learn More

PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.

Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share