Disruption of human fear reconsolidation using imaginal and in vivo extinction

Extinction after fear memory reactivation fails to eliminate renewal in rats

“…Although others have demonstrated that postretrieval extinction can prevent fear relapse in animals (Auchter et al, 2017; Baker et al, 2013; Clem & Huganir, 2010; Flavell et al, 2011; Jones et al, 2013; Jones & Monfils, 2016; Monfils et al, 2009; Olshavsky et al, 2013; Rao-Ruiz et al, 2011; Shumake & Monfils, 2015) and in humans (Agren et al, 2012a, 2012b, 2017; Björkstrand et al, 2015; Golkar et al, 2017; Liu et al, 2014; Meir Drexler et al, 2014; Meir Drexler & Wolf, 2016a; Oyarzún et al, 2012; Schiller et al, 2010, 2013; Thompson & Lipp, 2017), it is important to consider that prevention of relapse may not equate to erasure of the fear memory. For example, a well-trained extinction memory may be able to outcompete a fear memory for expression, without the fear memory necessarily being eliminated (Lattal & Wood, 2013).…”

Investigação dos efeitos do comportamento verbal durante a extinção pós-recuperação sobre o retorno do medo

“…"; and Question 4: "Now that we talked about the faces, I would like you to try to name each one based on characteristics you described"). There is experimental data suggesting that imagining the CS can be equivalent to being presented with the actual CS, as shown by experiments in which reduction of conditioned responses was achieved by imaginal extinction (Agren et al, 2017). The equivalence between imagining and having a direct contact with the actual stimulus or feared situation is the rationale for imaginal exposure used in clinical settings (Foa & McLean, 2016).…”

“…at the end of extinction is compared with differential scores at the beginning of the test (Agren, Björkstrand, & Fredrikson, 2017;Agren, Engman, et al, 2012;Agren, Furmark, Eriksson, & Fredrikson, 2012;Liu et al, 2014;Schiller et al, 2010;Soeter & Kindt, 2011;Steinfurth et al, 2014).…”

“…Evidence supporting this hypothesis comes from experimental studies demonstrating that pairing aversive USs with fear-relevant CSs result in conditioning that is more resistant to extinction (Mineka & Öhman, 2002;Öhman, Fredriksson, Hugdahl, & Rimmö, 1976;Öhman & Mineka, 2001). However, as pointed out by Golkar et al (2012), many PRE studies in humans report including only participants who showed evidence of extinction (Agren et al, 2017;Agren, Engman, et al, 2012;Agren, Furmark, et al, 2012;Golkar et al, 2012;Liu et al, 2014;Oyarzún et al, 2012;Schiller et al, 2013Schiller et al, , 2010Steinfurth et al, 2014). In other studies, return of fear was prevented by PRE using fear-irrelevant stimuli and including the whole sample (i.e., no exclusion of non-extinguishers was reported) (e.g.…”

“…Additionally, a relationship between expectancy report and conditional responses has been reported: fear return, measured by FPS, was higher when subjects were asked to report on a keypad by button-press whether they expected the US after the CS at every presentation of the CS (Warren et al, 2014). Most importantly, reduction of conditioned responses can be achieved by imagining the CS without the CS, a procedure called imaginal extinction, which shows that imagining a stimulus is equivalent to being exposed to the actual stimulus (Agren et al, 2017).…”