No abstract

The effect of D-cycloserine (DCS), an NMDA partial agonist, on extinction of fear was investigated in rats using the conditioned emotional response preparation. Fear extinction was facilitated when the first 4 trials occurred with a 30-mg/kg dose of DCS. However, extinguished fear was "renewed" regardless of the drug treatment when the rats were returned to the context in which fear had been conditioned. Additional results suggest that DCS's facilitation of extinction is a small but meaningful effect in the current method. The results suggest caution regarding the use of DCS as an adjunct to extinction: Although the drug may modestly facilitate extinction learning, it does not necessarily destroy the potential for relapse. Behavioral mechanisms are discussed.

D-cycloserine (DCS) may facilitate fear extinction learning, but the behavioral consequences and mechanisms behind this effect are not well understood at present. In this article, we re-analyze data from previously-reported null-result experiments and find that rats showing above-median extinction learning during DCS treatment benefited from the drug, whereas rats showing below-median (and in this case little) extinction learning did not. Two additional experiments found that DCS facilitated extinction learning when specifically combined with a moderate, but not a small, number of extinction trials. DCS thus facilitates extinction learning only if the behavioral procedure first engages the extinction learning process. The benefits of the drug, however, were specific to the context in which extinction was learned-i.e., DCS did not prevent or influence the renewal of fear observed when the extinguished cue was tested in the original conditioning context.

Five experiments with rat subjects compared the effects of immediate and delayed extinction on the durability of extinction learning. Three experiments examined extinction of fear conditioning (using the conditioned emotional response method), and two experiments examined extinction of appetitive conditioning (using the food-cup entry method). In all experiments, conditioning and extinction were accomplished in single sessions, and retention testing took place 24 h after extinction. In both fear and appetitive conditioning, immediate extinction (beginning 10 min after conditioning) caused a faster loss of responding than delayed extinction (beginning 24 h after conditioning). However, immediate extinction was less durable than delayed extinction: There was stronger spontaneous recovery during the final retention test. There was also substantial renewal of responding when the physical context was changed between immediate extinction and testing (Experiment 1). The results suggest that, in these two widely used conditioning preparations, immediate extinction does not erase or depotentiate the original learning, and instead creates a less permanent reduction in conditioned responding. Results did not support the possibility that the strong recovery after immediate extinction was due to a mismatch in the recent "context" provided by the presence or absence of a recent conditioning experience. Several other accounts are considered.

Two appetitive conditioning experiments with rats examined time-based and trial-based accounts of the partial reinforcement extinction effect (PREE). In the PREE, the loss of responding that occurs in extinction is slower when the conditioned stimulus (CS) has been paired with a reinforcer on some of its presentations (partially reinforced) instead of every presentation (continuously reinforced). According to a time-based or “time-accumulation” view (e.g., Gallistel & Gibbon, 2000), the PREE occurs because the organism has learned in partial reinforcement to expect the reinforcer after a larger amount of time has accumulated in the CS over trials. In contrast, according to a trial-based view (e.g., Capaldi, 1967), the PREE occurs because the organism has learned in partial reinforcement to expect the reinforcer after a larger number of CS presentations. Experiment 1 used a procedure that equated partially- and continuously-reinforced groups on their expected times to reinforcement during conditioning. A PREE was still observed. Experiment 2 then used an extinction procedure that allowed time in the CS and the number of trials to accumulate differentially through extinction. The PREE was still evident when responding was examined as a function of expected time units to the reinforcer, but was eliminated when responding was examined as a function of expected trial units to the reinforcer. There was no evidence that the animal responded according to the ratio of time accumulated during the CS in extinction over the time in the CS expected before the reinforcer. The results thus favor a trial-based account over a time-based account of extinction and the PREE.