Retrieval of an associative memory can lead to different phenomena. Brief reexposure sessions tend to trigger reconsolidation, whereas more extended ones trigger extinction. In appetitive and fear cued Pavlovian memories, an intermediate "null point" period has been observed where neither process seems to be engaged. Here we investigated whether this phenomenon extends to contextual fear memory. Adult rats were subjected to a contextual fear conditioning paradigm, reexposed to the context 2 d later for 3, 5, 10, 20, or 30 min, with immediate injections of MK-801 or saline following reexposure, and tested on the following day. We observed a significant effect of MK-801 with the 3-and 30-min sessions, impairing reconsolidation and extinction, respectively. However, it did not have significant effects with 5-, 10-, or 20-min sessions, even though freezing decreased from reexposure to test. Further analyses indicated that this is not likely to be due to a variable transition point at the population level. In conclusion, the results show that in contextual fear memories there is a genuine "null point" between the parameters that induce reconsolidation and extinction, as defined by the effects of MK-801, although NMDA receptor-independent decreases in freezing can still occur in these conditions.[Supplemental material is available for this article.]The retrieval of an associative memory can result in different outcomes. Retrieval in the absence of further reinforcement can destabilize a memory, requiring a process of reconsolidation (Nader and Hardt 2009), or can cause memory extinction through new inhibitory learning (Giustino and Maren 2015). The balance between destabilization and extinction appears to be influenced by the relative strength of learning and extent of nonreinforced retrieval (Eisenberg et al. 2003;Suzuki et al. 2004;Lee et al. 2006;de la Fuente et al. 2011;Flavell and Lee 2013). More extensive stimulus reexposure (i.e., extinction training), or weaker initial conditioning is more likely to result in extinction, whereas more restricted stimulus reexposure preferentially engages memory destabilization. This apparent competition between destabilization and extinction manifests as a bidirectional effect of amnestic treatment, depending of the parameters of conditioning and retrieval. Either reconsolidation is impaired to reduce subsequent memory expression, or extinction is disrupted to maintain expression of the original memory (Eisenberg et al. 2003;Suzuki et al. 2004;Lee et al. 2006;de la Fuente et al. 2011;Flavell and Lee 2013).In both appetitive Pavlovian and conditioned fear memories, recent evidence has indicated that extinction per se does not prevent memory destabilization and reconsolidation. In cue-sucrose, cue-fear, and context-fear settings, there appears to be a reexposure period between the parameters that engage destabilization and extinction, in which there is no behavioral effect of amnestic treatment (Flavell and Lee 2013;Merlo et al. 2014;Alfei et al. 2015). This "limbo" or "null poin...