Different mnemonic outcomes have been observed when associative memories are reactivated by CS exposure and followed by amnestics. These outcomes include mere retrieval, destabilization-reconsolidation, a transitional period (which is insensitive to amnestics), and extinction learning. However, little is known about the interaction between initial learning conditions and these outcomes during a reinforced or nonreinforced reactivation. Here we systematically combined temporally specific memories with different reactivation parameters to observe whether these four outcomes are determined by the conditions established during training. First, we validated two training regimens with different temporal expectations about US arrival. Then, using Midazolam (MDZ) as an amnestic agent, fear memories in both learning conditions were submitted to retraining either under identical or different parameters to the original training. Destabilization (i.e., susceptibly to MDZ) occurred when reactivation was reinforced, provided the occurrence of a temporal prediction error about US arrival. In subsequent experiments, both treatments were systematically reactivated by nonreinforced context exposure of different lengths, which allowed to explore the interaction between training and reactivation lengths. These results suggest that temporal prediction error and trace dominance determine the extent to which reactivation produces the different outcomes.

With the discovery of the blocking effect, learning theory took a huge leap forward, because blocking provided a crucial clue that surprise is what drives learning. This in turn stimulated the development of novel association-formation theories of learning. Eventually, the ability to explain blocking became nothing short of a touchstone for the validity of any theory of learning, including propositional and other nonassociative theories. The abundance of publications reporting a blocking effect and the importance attributed to it suggest that it is a robust phenomenon. Yet, in the current article we report 15 failures to observe a blocking effect despite the use of procedures that are highly similar or identical to those used in published studies. Those failures raise doubts regarding the canonical nature of the blocking effect and call for a reevaluation of the central status of blocking in theories of learning. They may also illustrate how publication bias influences our perspective toward the robustness and reliability of seemingly established effects in the psychological literature.

It has been suggested that, unlike pure extinction which typically results in the return of the fear response under a variety of circumstances, memory reactivation followed by extinction can attenuate the reemergence of conditioned fear. The reactivation-extinction procedure has attracted the attention of basic and clinical researchers due to its potential clinical value for the treatment of psychiatric conditions, such as anxiety and drug abuse disorders. However, mixed results have been achieved so far in replicating and understanding this paradigm. It has been proposed that memory destabilization could be critical in this sense. Using contextual fear conditioning in rats and midazolam as an amnesic agent, we first determined what reactivation conditions are necessary to destabilize the mnemonic trace. After establishing the conditions for memory destabilization, a series of experiments was conducted to determine if destabilization is critical for the success of the reactivation-extinction procedure. Data confirmed the importance of memory destabilization prior to extinction inside the reconsolidation window to attenuate spontaneous recovery and retard reacquisition of conditioned fear. The present report offers a candidate explanation of the discrepancy in results obtained with the reactivation -extinction procedure by different laboratories.

Two experiments using rats in a contextual fear memory preparation compared two approaches to reduce conditioned fear: (1) pharmacological reconsolidation blockade and (2) reactivation-plus-extinction training. In Experiment 1, we explored different combinations of reactivation-plus-extinction parameters to reduce conditioned fear and attenuate reacquisition. In Experiment 2, memory reactivation was followed by extinction training or administration of midazolam (MDZ) (vs. vehicle) to reduce conditioned fear and attenuate spontaneous recovery. We found both treatments to be equally effective in both experiments. This study suggests that parameters leading to memory destabilization during reactivation are critical to observe long-lasting effects of MDZ or reactivation plus extinction.

With the ultimate goal of investigating boundary conditions for post-reactivation amnesia, we set out to replicate studies in which systemic, post-reactivation administration of midazolam, propranolol, or cycloheximide resulted in amnesia for contextual fear memories. Our experiments involved conceptual as well as exact replications of previously published studies. In most of our experiments, we adopted a procedure that conformed to the standard 3-day protocol typically used in the literature, with contextual fear conditioning on day 1, unreinforced re-exposure to the conditioning context followed by systemic injection of the amnestic drug on day 2, and a memory retention test on day 3. Given the plethora of successful studies with large effects sizes and the absence of any failed replications in the literature, we were surprised to find that we were generally unable to replicate those findings. Our results suggest that post-reactivation amnesia by systemic drug administration in rats is more difficult to obtain than what would be expected based on published empirical reports. At present, it remains unclear which conditions determine the success of this procedure.

It is known that a consolidated memory can return to a labile state and become transiently malleable following reactivation. This instability is followed by a restabilization phase termed reconsolidation. In this work, we explored whether an unrelated appetitive experience (voluntary consumption of diluted sucrose) can affect a contextual fear memory in rats during the reactivation-induced destabilization phase. Our findings show that exposure to an appetitive experience following reactivation can diminish fear retention. This effect persisted after 1 wk. Importantly, it was achieved only under conditions that induced fear memory destabilization. This result could not be explained as a potentiated extinction, because sucrose was unable to promote extinction. Since GluN2B-containing NMDA receptors in the basolateral amygdala complex (BLA) have been implicated in triggering fear memory destabilization, we decided to block pharmacologically these receptors to explore the neurobiological bases of the observed effect. Intra-BLA infusion with ifenprodil, a GluN2B-NMDA antagonist, prevented the fear reduction caused by the appetitive experience. In sum, these results suggest that the expression of a fear memory can be dampened by an unrelated appetitive experience, as long as memory destabilization is achieved during reactivation. Possible mechanisms behind this effect and its clinical implications are discussed.

The present study aimed to investigate the influence of housing conditions on contextual fear memory malleability. Male Wistar rats were housed in enriched, standard, or impoverished conditions after weaning and remained in these conditions throughout the entire experiment. After six weeks into those housing conditions, all animals underwent a 3-day protocol including contextual fear conditioning (day 1), memory reactivation followed by systemic administration of midazolam or vehicle (day 2), and a retention test (day 3). Percentage freezing was used as a behavioral measure of contextual fear. There was no evidence for an effect of housing conditions on the sensitivity of contextual fear memory to amnestic effects of post-reactivation midazolam administration, and no indication for amnestic effects of post-reactivation midazolam overall (including in the standard group). The inability to replicate previous demonstrations of post-reactivation amnesia using the same protocol underscores the subtle nature of post-reactivation pharmacological memory interference. Notably, impoverished housing resulted in a decrease in contextual freezing during contextual fear conditioning, reactivation and retention testing, compared to enriched and standard housing conditions. This observation warrants caution when interpreting the results from experiments regarding effects of housing on fear memory processes, particularly when freezing is used as a measure of fear.

The blocking effect has inspired numerous associative learning theories and is widely cited in the literature. We recently reported a series of 15 experiments that failed to obtain a blocking effect in rodents. On the basis of those consistent failures, we claimed that there is a lack of insight into the boundary conditions for blocking. In his commentary, Soto (2018) argued that contemporary associative learning theory does provide a specific boundary condition for the occurrence of blocking, namely the use of same- versus different-modality stimuli. Given that in 10 of our 15 experiments same-modality stimuli were used, he claims that our failure to observe a blocking effect is unsurprising. We disagree with that claim, because of theoretical, empirical, and statistical problems with his analysis. We also address 2 other possible reasons for a lack of blocking that are referred to in Soto's (2018) analysis, related to generalization and salience, and dissect the potential importance of both. Although Soto's (2018) analyses raise a number of interesting points, we see more merit in an empirically guided analysis and call for empirical testing of boundary conditions on blocking. (PsycINFO Database Record