Cargando…

Impact of a reminder/extinction procedure on threat-conditioned pupil size and skin conductance responses

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 procedur...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zimmermann, Josua, Bach, Dominik R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079572/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32179658
http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/lm.050211.119
_version_ 1783507855228272640
author Zimmermann, Josua
Bach, Dominik R.
author_facet Zimmermann, Josua
Bach, Dominik R.
author_sort Zimmermann, Josua
collection PubMed
description 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 memory by conditioned skin conductance responses (SCR). Yet, other studies measuring SCR and/or fear-potentiated startle failed to observe an effect of a reminder/extinction procedure on the return of fear. Here we sought to shed light on this discrepancy by using a different autonomic response, namely, conditioned pupil dilation, in addition to SCR, in a replication of the original human study. N = 71 humans underwent a 3-d threat conditioning, reminder/extinction, and reinstatement, procedure with 2 CS+, of which one was reminded. Participants successfully learned the threat association on day 1, extinguished conditioned responding on day 2, and showed reinstatement on day 3. However, there was no difference in conditioned responding between the reminded and the nonreminded CS, neither in pupil size nor SCR. Thus, we found no evidence that a reminder trial before extinction prevents the return of threat-conditioned responding.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7079572
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70795722020-04-01 Impact of a reminder/extinction procedure on threat-conditioned pupil size and skin conductance responses Zimmermann, Josua Bach, Dominik R. Learn Mem Research 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 memory by conditioned skin conductance responses (SCR). Yet, other studies measuring SCR and/or fear-potentiated startle failed to observe an effect of a reminder/extinction procedure on the return of fear. Here we sought to shed light on this discrepancy by using a different autonomic response, namely, conditioned pupil dilation, in addition to SCR, in a replication of the original human study. N = 71 humans underwent a 3-d threat conditioning, reminder/extinction, and reinstatement, procedure with 2 CS+, of which one was reminded. Participants successfully learned the threat association on day 1, extinguished conditioned responding on day 2, and showed reinstatement on day 3. However, there was no difference in conditioned responding between the reminded and the nonreminded CS, neither in pupil size nor SCR. Thus, we found no evidence that a reminder trial before extinction prevents the return of threat-conditioned responding. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press 2020-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7079572/ /pubmed/32179658 http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/lm.050211.119 Text en © 2020 Zimmermann and Bach; Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This article, published in Learning & Memory, is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), as described at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Research
Zimmermann, Josua
Bach, Dominik R.
Impact of a reminder/extinction procedure on threat-conditioned pupil size and skin conductance responses
title Impact of a reminder/extinction procedure on threat-conditioned pupil size and skin conductance responses
title_full Impact of a reminder/extinction procedure on threat-conditioned pupil size and skin conductance responses
title_fullStr Impact of a reminder/extinction procedure on threat-conditioned pupil size and skin conductance responses
title_full_unstemmed Impact of a reminder/extinction procedure on threat-conditioned pupil size and skin conductance responses
title_short Impact of a reminder/extinction procedure on threat-conditioned pupil size and skin conductance responses
title_sort impact of a reminder/extinction procedure on threat-conditioned pupil size and skin conductance responses
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079572/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32179658
http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/lm.050211.119
work_keys_str_mv AT zimmermannjosua impactofareminderextinctionprocedureonthreatconditionedpupilsizeandskinconductanceresponses
AT bachdominikr impactofareminderextinctionprocedureonthreatconditionedpupilsizeandskinconductanceresponses