In another classical conditioning MEG study with two different CS tones, Kluge et al. (2011) reported stronger tangential field gradients at left and right central sensor clusters at mid-latency (85–115 ms) and late (180–270 ms) intervals for CS+ (with omitted electric shock) compared to CS− tones during conditioning. When comparing all CS+ (also CS+ with US presentation) with CS− tones they found relatively enhanced gradient

fields for CS− processing in these sensor groups in an early interval between 30 and 50 ms. A following phase with contingency reversal eliminated the CS+/CS− differentiation at early and mid-latency intervals but reversed effects at the late interval. The authors interpret the effects at mid-latency and late intervals as enhanced processing of the pain-signalling CS+ in the auditory cortex. However, as electric shocks (UCS) were presented at 100, 175 and 250 ms after CS onset and source analysis was not performed, it remains unclear whether these click here effects reflect preferential auditory CS+ processing, a somatosensory CR (see above) or a mixture of both. Effects in the early interval were interpreted

as reflecting preferential auditory sensory processing of the safety signalling Selleck PR-171 CS− tones. A post hoc analysis of N1m interval identified by Kluge et al. (2011; 85–115 ms) revealed very similar results as our 100–150 ms interval analysis i.e. relatively enhanced CS− processing at the left temporoparietal junction and left occipitocerebral junction. An Cobimetinib nmr analysis of their P2m (180–270 ms) interval in fact showed indications for enhanced CS+ processing but at bihemispheric somatosensory and right hemispheric parietal but not auditory sensory regions. Again, the N1m and P2m CS+ processing identified by Kluge and co-workers may at least partly reflect a conditioned response. The late effect might, however, additionally represent some form of conscious CS+ processing depending on contingency awareness which might have contributed to the unique reversal effects in this late component. Please note that, in the above classical conditioning studies, CS stimuli have been paired several hundred times with or without US and most subjects should have

been at least partly aware of the reinforcement plan, whereas absence of contingency awareness is one important factor within this MultiCS conditioning study. Importantly, the only interval which should not be superposed by a conditioned response (20–50 ms) revealed enhanced processing for safety signalling CS− identical to our study. The length of the CS stimuli (200 ms in Moses et al., 2010; and 250 ms in Kluge et al., 2011) is another important difference between these previous classical and our MultiCS conditioning studies (20 ms CS length). Although a differentiation of CS+ and CS− tones should be available immediately after CS onset, as our results would suggest, it remains unclear how differential processing of the subsequent parts of the auditory CS superimpose (e.