In six experiments we studied the effects of a single re-exposure to a conditioned stimulus (CS; "retrieval trial") prior to extinction training (extinction-reconsolidation boundary) on the development of and recovery from fear extinction. A single retrieval trial prior to extinction training significantly augmented the renewal and reinstatement of extinguished responding. Augmentation of recovery was not observed if the retrieval and extinction training occurred in different contexts. These results contrast with those reported in earlier papers by Monfils and coworkers in rats and by Schiller and coworkers in humans. We suggest that these contrasting results could depend on the contrasting influences of either: (1) occasion-setting contextual associations vs. direct context-CS associations formed as a consequence of the retrieval trial or (2) discrimination vs. generalization between the circumstances of conditioning and extinction.

A series of experiments used a within-subject design to study spontaneous recovery of fear responses (freezing) to an extinguished conditioned stimulus (CS) in rats. Experiments 1, 2, 3, and 4 demonstrated that: a remotely extinguished CS elicited more freezing than a recently extinguished one on a common test; that the CS showing recovery underwent greater response loss across additional extinction than the one lacking recovery; and that spontaneous recovery and deepening of response loss survived reconditioning. Experiment 5 demonstrated that an excitor extinguished in compound with a CS showing recovery suffered greater loss than an excitor extinguished in compound with a CS not showing recovery, implying that the differential change is regulated by a common error term. Experiments 6 and 7 demonstrated that extinction of a compound composed of two CSs, one showing recovery and a second lacking recovery, produced greater loss to the CS that showed recovery, implying that the change is also regulated by individual error term.

A series of experiments used rats to compare and contrast the effects of subjecting an already extinguished target conditioned stimulus (CS) to additional extinction in compound with either another extinguished or a nonextinguished CS. Exposure to either compound restored responding and their extinction deepened the loss of fear responses (freezing) to the target relative to a CS given equivalent extinction in isolation. This deepening was greater to the target extinguished in compound with the nonextinguished than with the extinguished CS. Summation tests showed that the target suppressed responding to an excitor or an excitatory context when it had been extinguished in compound with a nonextinguished but not with an extinguished CS. The results were interpreted to mean that additional extinction in compound with another extinguished CS resulted in the target acquiring the additional inhibition required to more fully oppose its original excitation. In contrast, additional extinction in compound with a nonextinguished CS resulted in the target acquiring not only the additional inhibition required to oppose its original excitation but also that of the nonextinguished CS, thereby converting the target into a net inhibitor.

A series of experiments studied reacquisition of fear reactions to a completely extinguished context. Reacquisition was rapid when reconditioning occurred as soon as the fear reactions were completely extinguished, showing that the original conditioning was intact. However, when reconditioning occurred after massive extinction training, fear reactions were depressed but then recovered across a long retention interval. This recovery was due to reconditioning and was similar to that produced by conditioning a massively preexposed context. These results show that massive extinction converts a potentially dangerous context into one that is merely familiar.

The present experiments studied the role of error correction mechanisms in the latent inhibition of conditioned fear responses by conditioned stimulus (CS) preexposure. They demonstrated that a preexposed CS subjected to additional exposures in compound with either another preexposed stimulus or a novel stimulus was more latently inhibited than a preexposed CS which received additional exposures in isolation. They also showed that a preexposed CS subjected to additional exposures in compound with another preexposed stimulus was more latently inhibited than a preexposed CS given additional exposures in compound with a novel stimulus. These results were discussed in terms of the Hall-Rodriguez (2010) model of latent inhibition.