Abstract:A reminder can render consolidated memory labile and susceptible to amnesic agents during a reconsolidation window. For the case of threat memory (also termed fear memory), it has been suggested that extinction training during this reconsolidation window has the same disruptive impact. This procedure could provide a powerful therapeutic principle for treatment of unwanted aversive memories. However, human research yielded contradictory results. Notably, all published positive replications quantified threat mem… Show more
“… 103 – 105 ). We suggest that our findings are in line with the literature that is unable to replicate the reminder-extinction effects on conditioned threat memories in humans 36 , 55 , 56 , 58 – 62 , 71 , where we note that ours diverges specifically in that we investigated contextual threat memories using iVR. The limited replicability may not be limited the reminder-extinction procedure, but could generalize to reconsolidation-based interventions 106 , 107 .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…We followed our preregistered design and analyses with a few minor exceptions, which we clearly indicate below. In contrast to our hypotheses, yet in line with previous non-replications for cue conditioned threat memories 55 , 56 , 58 – 61 , 71 – 73 , contextual conditioned threat memories 71 and category threat conditioned memories 36 , we found comparable recovery of context conditioned threat responses in the extinction group and the reminder-extinction group, and no group differences on either avoidance behaviour or the other memory tests, suggesting that the reminder-extinction procedure did not modify contextual threat memories in humans. Figure 1 Three-day between-subjects iVR contextual threat conditioning study design.…”
Upon reactivation, consolidated memories can enter a temporary labile state and require restabilisation, known as reconsolidation. Interventions during this reconsolidation period can disrupt the reactivated memory. However, it is unclear whether different kinds of memory that depend on distinct brain regions all undergo reconsolidation. Evidence for reconsolidation originates from studies assessing amygdala-dependent memories using cue-conditioning paradigms in rodents, which were subsequently replicated in humans. Whilst studies providing evidence for reconsolidation of hippocampus-dependent memories in rodents have predominantly used context conditioning paradigms, studies in humans have used completely different paradigms such as tests for wordlists or stories. Here our objective was to bridge this paradigm gap between rodent and human studies probing reconsolidation of hippocampus-dependent memories. We modified a recently developed immersive Virtual Reality paradigm to test in humans whether contextual threat-conditioned memories can be disrupted by a reminder-extinction procedure that putatively targets reconsolidation. In contrast to our hypothesis, we found comparable recovery of contextual conditioned threat responses, and comparable retention of subjective measures of threat memory, episodic memory and exploration behaviour between the reminder-extinction and standard extinction groups. Our result provide no evidence that a reminder before extinction can prevent the return of context conditioned threat memories in humans.
“… 103 – 105 ). We suggest that our findings are in line with the literature that is unable to replicate the reminder-extinction effects on conditioned threat memories in humans 36 , 55 , 56 , 58 – 62 , 71 , where we note that ours diverges specifically in that we investigated contextual threat memories using iVR. The limited replicability may not be limited the reminder-extinction procedure, but could generalize to reconsolidation-based interventions 106 , 107 .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…We followed our preregistered design and analyses with a few minor exceptions, which we clearly indicate below. In contrast to our hypotheses, yet in line with previous non-replications for cue conditioned threat memories 55 , 56 , 58 – 61 , 71 – 73 , contextual conditioned threat memories 71 and category threat conditioned memories 36 , we found comparable recovery of context conditioned threat responses in the extinction group and the reminder-extinction group, and no group differences on either avoidance behaviour or the other memory tests, suggesting that the reminder-extinction procedure did not modify contextual threat memories in humans. Figure 1 Three-day between-subjects iVR contextual threat conditioning study design.…”
Upon reactivation, consolidated memories can enter a temporary labile state and require restabilisation, known as reconsolidation. Interventions during this reconsolidation period can disrupt the reactivated memory. However, it is unclear whether different kinds of memory that depend on distinct brain regions all undergo reconsolidation. Evidence for reconsolidation originates from studies assessing amygdala-dependent memories using cue-conditioning paradigms in rodents, which were subsequently replicated in humans. Whilst studies providing evidence for reconsolidation of hippocampus-dependent memories in rodents have predominantly used context conditioning paradigms, studies in humans have used completely different paradigms such as tests for wordlists or stories. Here our objective was to bridge this paradigm gap between rodent and human studies probing reconsolidation of hippocampus-dependent memories. We modified a recently developed immersive Virtual Reality paradigm to test in humans whether contextual threat-conditioned memories can be disrupted by a reminder-extinction procedure that putatively targets reconsolidation. In contrast to our hypothesis, we found comparable recovery of contextual conditioned threat responses, and comparable retention of subjective measures of threat memory, episodic memory and exploration behaviour between the reminder-extinction and standard extinction groups. Our result provide no evidence that a reminder before extinction can prevent the return of context conditioned threat memories in humans.
“…This experimental paradigm and its variants have been reported to extinguish fear- and addiction-related memory in humans (Bjorkstrand et al, 2016 ; Agren et al, 2017 ; Lee et al, 2017 ; Thompson and Lipp, 2017 ; Chen et al, 2019 ; Kitamura et al, 2020 ). However, reproducibility issues in the field (Kredlow et al, 2018 ; Zimmermann and Bach, 2020 ) have suggested that this effect is sensitive to procedural differences. A meta-analysis established that retrieval extinction had a negligible to moderate influence on impeding recovery of the fear responses compared with standard extinction (Kredlow et al, 2016 ).…”
Reactivation of consolidated memories can induce a labile period, in which these reactivated memories might be susceptible to change and need reconsolidation. Prediction error (PE) has been recognized as a necessary boundary condition for memory destabilization. Moreover, memory strength is also widely accepted as an essential boundary condition to destabilize fear memory. This study investigated whether different strengths of conditioned fear memories require different degrees of PE during memory reactivation in order for the memories to become destabilized. Here, we assessed the fear-potentiated startle and skin conductance response, using the post-retrieval extinction procedure. A violation of expectancy (PE) was induced during retrieval to reactivate enhanced (unpredictable-shock) or ordinary (predictable-shock) fear memories that were established the day before. Results showed that a PE retrieval before extinction can prevent the return of predictable-shock fear memory but cannot prevent the return of unpredictable-shock fear memory, indicating that a single PE is insufficient to destabilize enhanced fear memory. Therefore, we further investigated whether increasing the degree of PE could destabilize enhanced fear memory using different retrieval strategies (multiple PE retrieval and unreinforced CS retrieval). We found that spontaneous recovery of enhanced fear memory was prevented in both retrieval strategies, but reinstatement was only prevented in the multiple PE retrieval group, suggesting that a larger amount of PE is needed to destabilize enhanced fear memory. The findings suggest that behavioral updating during destabilization requires PE, and the degree of PE needed to induce memory destabilization during memory retrieval depends on the strength of fear memory. The study indicates that memory reconsolidation inference can be used to destabilize stronger memories, and the findings shed lights on the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorders and anxiety disorders.
“…B.14. 2020 Zimmermann and Bach [80]: "Impact of a reminder/extinction procedure on threatconditioned pupil size and skin conductance responses" Once again, replicating experiment 2 of Schiller et al [7] was the purpose of this study, but with SCR measurement supplemented by measurement of another autonomic response, pupil size response (PSR). The authors note that (p. 165) "a direct comparison has revealed that PSR may have higher accuracy in inferring fear memory than SCR (Korn et al 2017)."…”
Section: B11 2018 Zuccolo and Hunzigermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These researchers also (p. 165) "optimized some parameters in light of a recent meta-analysis by Kredlow et al (2016), in order to increase the chances of revealing success of the reminder/extinction procedure…." The parameters used by Zimmermann and Bach [80] and [Schiller et al [7]] are listed here: In addition to those optimizations, this study's statistical power was slightly stronger than that of Schiller et al [7]: "Our sample size was based on the signal-to-noise ratio of PSR under control conditions. Thus, we recruited a sample that provided 85% power to detect an at least 50% absolute reduction of fear retention, corresponding to the ∼60% reduction found in Schiller et al ( 2010)" (p. 165).…”
The annulment of a human emotional memory through reconsolidation behavioral updating has been documented in over twenty laboratory studies since the first such report in 2010. However, fourteen studies have reported non-replication, the cause(s) of which remain unclear. This review examines all successful and unsuccessful studies in detail, in an attempt to identify (a) the specific probable causes of non-replication and (b) how clinical translation might optimally be designed. For analyzing non-replications, a set of criteria is defined for principled identification of specific moments of prediction error (PE) in experimental procedures, including latent cause transitions, based on a preponderance of empirical evidence. A previously overlooked element of experimental procedure is in that way identified as being potentially decisive, and a unified, testable explanation is proposed for behavioral updating successes and failures in terms of the presence or absence of a PE experience. That in turn allows successful studies to be compared for the internal experiences induced in subjects, rather than compared for their external procedures, revealing an invariant set of three experiences shared by all successful updating studies despite their diverse procedures. Clinical translation, defined as replication of those experiences, not any particular procedure, is illustrated by an actual case, one of many published cases that have documented prompt transformational change produced by that specific methodology, suggesting memory reconsolidation as the mechanism of change. Lastly, the core empirical findings of successful reconsolidation updating studies are compared with previously proposed frameworks of memory reconsolidation in psychotherapy, exposing significant departures from scientific fidelity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
