Patient SM is the anonymized identifier for a woman with Urbach-Wiethe disease whose bilateral amygdalae have been progressively destroyed by calcification, leaving her essentially without functional amygdalae. She has been studied by researchers at the University of Iowa for decades and is the most extensively documented case of bilateral amygdala damage in the neuroscientific literature. She reports no experience of fear in response to threats, dangerous animals, or frightening situations that reliably produce fear in other people — a profile that has made her case central to the scientific understanding of the amygdala's role in fear processing.

What is the amygdala and what does it do?

The amygdala is a bilateral almond-shaped structure in the medial temporal lobe, one on each side of the brain. It is a critical component of the brain's threat-detection and emotional processing circuitry. Its best-established functions include fear conditioning — the process by which neutral stimuli acquire the capacity to elicit fear through association with threat — and the modulation of emotional memory encoding, amplifying the consolidation of emotionally significant events in the hippocampus. Research following Patient SM's case has refined the amygdala's role from a simple fear center to a broader salience detector that flags emotionally and socially significant stimuli for attention, with fear processing being its most studied function.

Can Patient SM feel any fear at all?

Yes, under one specific condition. A 2013 study by Justin Feinstein and colleagues exposed Patient SM to air containing 35 percent carbon dioxide, which triggers the brain's suffocation alarm — a primitive response to the threat of asphyxiation. She experienced acute fear: rapid heart rate, subjective terror, and the urge to escape. This was the first documented fear response in Patient SM in decades. The finding demonstrated that the suffocation alarm relies on a different neural circuit — likely involving brainstem chemoreceptors detecting carbon dioxide directly — that bypasses the amygdala entirely. Her amygdala is not required for all fear, only for the threat-detection circuitry that makes most environmental and learned threats frightening.

Is fearlessness an advantage or a disadvantage?

Patient SM's case suggests it is primarily a disadvantage in practical terms. The fear response is adaptive: it mobilizes the body for rapid response to threat, motivates avoidance of dangerous situations, and encodes threat memories to produce protective future behavior. Patient SM does not learn to avoid situations that have harmed her before, because fear normally enforces that learning. She has been held at knifepoint and threatened at gunpoint without experiencing urgency to escape, and researchers who have documented her history describe her survival as partly attributable to luck. Her fearlessness is not experienced by researchers as enviable but as a clinically significant vulnerability.

Is the amygdala simply a fear center in the brain?

No, and Patient SM's case — particularly the carbon dioxide findings — has helped move the field away from that oversimplification. Human neuroimaging studies have shown that the amygdala responds to a wide range of emotionally significant stimuli, including positive ones, and is particularly sensitive to novelty and social salience. The carbon dioxide experiments demonstrated that fear can be produced without amygdala involvement through a separate brainstem pathway, indicating that no single brain region is solely responsible for the experience of fear. The current consensus view characterizes the amygdala as a salience detector that flags emotionally and socially significant stimuli for attention, with fear conditioning being its most prominent but not its only function.

People Who Feel No Fear: The Case of Patient SM and the Amygdala

Q: What is Urbach-Wiethe disease?

Urbach-Wiethe disease is an extremely rare autosomal recessive genetic condition caused by mutations in the ECM1 gene. Its primary manifestations involve thickening and scarring of skin and mucosal tissue, and characteristic hoarseness from vocal cord deposits. In a subset of patients, the same calcification process deposits calcium in the medial temporal lobes, selectively and bilaterally destroying the amygdalae. First described in 1929, the disease is scientifically valuable precisely because its calcification targets the amygdalae with unusual selectivity, leaving surrounding temporal lobe structures relatively intact — providing cleaner amygdala lesions than stroke or surgery typically produce.

Q: What has Patient SM's case revealed about PTSD?

Patient SM does not develop the enhanced, vivid emotional memories that characterize traumatic memory in most people, because the amygdala normally amplifies the encoding of threatening events through its modulation of hippocampal consolidation. Her inability to form these enhanced threat memories has helped clarify the amygdala's central role in the pathological over-encoding of threatening experiences that defines post-traumatic stress disorder. By demonstrating what the emotional memory system looks like in the complete absence of amygdala function, her case has provided a baseline against which PTSD's hyperactive threat encoding can be understood and pharmacologically targeted.

Researchers at the University of Iowa wanted to know if Patient SM could be scared. They had been studying her for years and had never observed anything resembling fear in her behavior or her self-reports. She had been held at knifepoint and had not been frightened. She had been threatened at gunpoint and had not been frightened. She had once approached a man who held a knife to her throat in a park and felt, she later told researchers, only curiosity — she was interested in the knife. They had shown her the most disturbing images from the International Affective Picture System, a standardized set of photographs used to elicit emotional responses, and she had rated them calmly, without the autonomic arousal that other subjects reliably showed. They had exposed her to spiders and snakes, which she handled with cheerful interest. None of it produced fear.

So they took her to a haunted house attraction in Louisville, Kentucky — a professional Halloween entertainment venue specifically designed to maximize fright responses, staffed by actors trained to startle and menace visitors. Other adults in her group screamed, startled, grabbed each other. Patient SM walked through the experience with visible delight. At one point she startled one of the actors by reaching out to examine their costume with apparent fascination, effectively reversing the direction of the intended encounter. When asked afterward whether she had been afraid, she said no. When asked whether she had felt anything, she said she had found it exciting and fun.

Patient SM has a rare genetic condition called Urbach-Wiethe disease that has, over the course of her life, progressively calcified and destroyed her amygdalae — the bilateral almond-shaped structures in the medial temporal lobe that have long been understood as central to the processing of fear and threat. By the time researchers at Iowa began studying her seriously, her amygdalae were essentially gone, replaced by calcium deposits. And she had not experienced fear, by her own report, since early adolescence — the period when the damage became complete.

Her case is the most extensively studied in the neuroscience of fear, and it has taught researchers more about the amygdala’s role in the fear response than any controlled laboratory experiment could have produced. But it has also complicated the simple story that her early findings seemed to confirm, in ways that have made the amygdala’s relationship to fear considerably more interesting — and considerably less straightforward — than it initially appeared.

Contents

Urbach-Wiethe Disease and the Destruction of the Amygdala
What Patient SM Cannot Feel and What She Can
- The Knife and the Park
- Emotional Memory and the Amygdala
The Twist: Patient SM Can Feel Fear After All
- Inhaling Carbon Dioxide
- The Revised Model of the Amygdala
Other Cases: The Broader Literature on Amygdala Lesions
- Patients AM and BG
What Patient SM Tells Us About Fear in the Normal Brain
Extreme Brain Cases: Full Series

Urbach-Wiethe Disease and the Destruction of the Amygdala

Urbach-Wiethe disease, first described in 1929, is an extraordinarily rare autosomal recessive condition caused by mutations in the ECM1 gene, which encodes a protein involved in maintaining the integrity of extracellular matrix in skin and mucosal tissue. The condition’s most visible manifestation is a thickening and scarring of the skin, lips, and throat, along with a characteristic hoarseness caused by deposits on the vocal cords. These features are unpleasant but not life-threatening, and Urbach-Wiethe disease would be a minor dermatological curiosity if not for one additional feature: in a subset of patients, the same calcification process that affects the skin also deposits calcium in the medial temporal lobes, selectively and bilaterally destroying the amygdalae.

The selectivity of this destruction is what makes Urbach-Wiethe disease so scientifically valuable. Lesions to the amygdala produced by stroke or tumor typically damage surrounding tissue as well, complicating the attribution of behavioral effects to the amygdala specifically. In Urbach-Wiethe disease, the calcification process targets the amygdalae with a precision that no surgical intervention could achieve. Patient SM represents the most complete bilateral amygdala destruction in the literature, with neuroimaging confirming essentially total bilateral lesions while surrounding temporal lobe structures remain largely intact.

What Patient SM Cannot Feel and What She Can

The specificity of Patient SM’s emotional profile is as important as its most striking feature. She is not emotionally flat. She is not a broadly affectless person who experiences life at reduced intensity. She feels happiness, sadness, disgust, and surprise with normal or near-normal intensity. She has social relationships and experiences the ordinary range of social emotions. She is capable of emotional reasoning about past events. She has normal emotional responses in most of the situations that life presents.

What she appears to lack is fear — specifically, the acute fear response to threat: the rapid, automatic mobilization of the physiological and behavioral systems that in most people respond to danger within milliseconds. She does not startle readily. She does not experience the anticipatory dread that most people feel in situations they know to be dangerous. She does not avoid situations or stimuli that she has learned to associate with harm. She approaches snakes and spiders with the curiosity a child might show toward a novel toy. She has, by the accounts of the researchers who have spent the most time with her, a fundamentally different relationship with the world’s danger than the rest of the population — not because she is braver than other people, but because the system that generates the felt sense of threat is simply not functioning.

The Knife and the Park

The most unsettling of the real-world incidents in Patient SM’s life — unsettling to researchers, not to her — are the documented encounters with genuine physical threat. She has been held at knifepoint. She has been threatened with a gun. On one occasion, a man in a park she was walking through late at night held a knife to her throat and told her he was going to cut her. She told him, according to the account she gave researchers, that she was not frightened — that she felt no particular urgency about the situation. She walked away. The man let her go, possibly because her response was so far outside what he expected that it disrupted his own script for the encounter.

Researchers who have documented these events describe them with a mixture of fascination and concern. Patient SM’s fearlessness is not a superpower — it is a vulnerability. The fear response exists because it is adaptive: it mobilizes the body for rapid response to threat, motivates avoidance of dangerous situations, and encodes threat memories in ways that produce protective future behavior. Patient SM’s absence of fear means she does not avoid the situations and stimuli that injured her before. She does not learn from threat in the way that fear normally enforces. She has survived her adult life in part through what researchers have described as something like luck.

Emotional Memory and the Amygdala

Beyond the acute fear response, Patient SM also shows impairment in the normal enhancement of memory by emotional significance. In neurologically typical people, the amygdala amplifies the encoding of emotionally arousing events — fear, anger, excitement, and love all produce more durable and detailed memories than neutral events, through a process in which the amygdala modulates the consolidation of memories in the hippocampus. This is why people remember where they were when they heard about a major disaster but cannot remember what they had for breakfast on an ordinary Tuesday.

Patient SM’s memory for emotionally significant events does not show this enhancement. Her emotional memories are encoded at roughly the same strength as ordinary events. She does not show the pattern of involuntary, vivid emotional recollection that characterizes traumatic memory in most people, for the straightforward reason that the system that normally encodes events as traumatic is not available to her. This finding has been important for research on post-traumatic stress disorder: it has helped clarify the amygdala’s central role in the pathological over-encoding of threatening experiences that characterizes PTSD, by demonstrating what the memory system looks like in its absence.

The Twist: Patient SM Can Feel Fear After All

For decades, Patient SM appeared to be the cleanest possible demonstration of the amygdala’s necessity for fear: destroy the amygdala, eliminate fear. The case seemed to confirm a simple and powerful model. Then, in 2013, a research team including Justin Feinstein published findings that complicated the picture in a way that no one had anticipated.

Inhaling Carbon Dioxide

Feinstein and colleagues had Patient SM inhale a mixture of air containing 35 percent carbon dioxide — a concentration high enough to trigger the brain’s suffocation alarm, a deeply primitive response to the threat of asphyxiation that produces intense panic in most people within seconds of exposure. Patient SM inhaled the mixture. And she panicked. She experienced, by her own report and by the observable measures of her physiological response, acute fear — rapid heart rate, a subjective sense of terror, the desire to escape. It was the first time in decades that she had reported anything resembling a fear response, and it was genuine.

The finding was striking for several reasons. It demonstrated that Patient SM’s amygdala is not required for all fear — specifically, it is not required for the panic triggered by the suffocation alarm, which appears to rely on a different neural circuit, possibly involving chemoreceptors in the brainstem that detect carbon dioxide levels directly. But it also revealed that the subjective capacity for fear was not destroyed in Patient SM along with the amygdala. The feeling of fear — the phenomenological state — could be produced by a route that bypassed the amygdala entirely.

The implication was important: the amygdala is not the brain’s single fear center in any simple sense. It is a critical component of the threat-detection and fear-conditioning circuitry that responds to learned and environmental threats — the system that normally makes snakes, haunted houses, and armed robberies frightening. But the experience of fear can be generated through other pathways, given the right trigger. Patient SM’s amygdala-less brain retained the capacity for fear at the level of subjective experience; what it lacked was the route by which most fear normally enters consciousness.

The Revised Model of the Amygdala

The carbon dioxide finding joined a growing body of research from other sources suggesting that the amygdala’s role in fear is both more specific and more complex than the simple fear center model implied. Human neuroimaging studies had already shown that amygdala activation is not restricted to fear: it responds to a wide range of emotionally significant stimuli, including positive ones, and is particularly sensitive to novelty and social salience. Patients with amygdala damage from other causes did not always show the complete elimination of fear that Patient SM’s case had seemed to demonstrate. The amygdala, on the emerging account, is better described as a salience detector — a structure that flags stimuli as requiring attention because they are emotionally or socially significant — than as a dedicated fear organ. Its role in fear is real and substantial, but it is part of a larger circuit rather than the circuit’s single essential component.

Other Cases: The Broader Literature on Amygdala Lesions

Patient SM is the most studied individual with bilateral amygdala damage, but she is not unique. A small number of other Urbach-Wiethe patients with bilateral amygdala calcification have been studied, and a handful of individuals with amygdala damage from other causes — bilateral temporal lobe encephalitis, surgical resection for epilepsy — have provided additional data points. The picture that emerges from the broader literature is consistent in its outlines but variable in its details.

Patients AM and BG

Two other Urbach-Wiethe patients, identified in the literature as AM and BG, also showed fear deficits following bilateral amygdala calcification, though neither case was as complete as Patient SM’s. Both were also exposed to the carbon dioxide challenge by Feinstein’s group and both showed fear responses — confirming that the suffocation-alarm pathway is intact even in the absence of amygdala function. The consistency of this finding across three patients with similar lesions substantially strengthened the conclusion that the carbon dioxide-triggered panic reflects a genuinely amygdala-independent fear circuit rather than a peculiarity of SM’s specific case.

What Patient SM Tells Us About Fear in the Normal Brain

The contribution of Patient SM’s case to the understanding of normal fear processing is substantial and has accumulated over more than three decades of study. Several conclusions now rest, at least partly, on evidence that her case helped establish.

The first is that the amygdala is necessary for fear conditioning — the process by which neutral stimuli acquire the capacity to elicit fear through association with threat. Patient SM does not acquire conditioned fear responses. She can learn, intellectually, that a stimulus has been associated with harm, but she does not develop the automatic, visceral response that normally follows fear conditioning. This finding has been confirmed by laboratory testing and is consistent with her real-world history of failing to avoid situations she knows to be dangerous. It has implications for the understanding of phobias — which are, in essence, excessive fear conditioning — and for anxiety disorders more broadly, since the amygdala’s role in conditioned fear is one of the most pharmacologically accessible targets in anxiety treatment.

The second is that the amygdala modulates the encoding of emotional memories, as described above, in ways that have direct clinical implications for PTSD. The third — established by the carbon dioxide experiments — is that the subjective experience of fear is not amygdala-dependent in an absolute sense, and that different fear-triggering stimuli engage different neural routes to the same phenomenological outcome. This has broader implications for theories of emotion: it suggests that emotional states cannot be simply identified with the activity of specific brain regions, but are the products of multiple converging pathways whose relative contributions vary depending on the eliciting stimulus.

Patient SM has never been frightened by snakes or haunted houses or armed men with knives. She has been frightened, once, by a breath of carbon dioxide. The difference between those two categories of experience — what they have in common as fear, and what distinguishes them neurologically — is, in miniature, the entire question of how the brain produces the feeling of danger. Patient SM has not answered that question. She has made it precise enough to be worth asking carefully.

Sharing

Follow Us