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...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
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 |