The presentation of a fear memory cue can result in mere memory retrieval, destabilization of the reactivated memory trace, or the formation of an extinction memory. The interaction between the degree of novelty during reactivation and previous learning conditions is thought to determine the outcome of a reactivation session. This study aimed to evaluate whether contextual novelty can prevent cue-induced destabilization and disruption of a fear memory acquired by non-asymptotic learning. To this end, fear memory was reactivated in a novel context or in the original context of learning, and fear memory reactivation was followed by the administration of propranolol, an amnestic drug. Remarkably, fear memory was not impaired by post-reactivation propranolol administration or extinction training under the usual conditions used in our lab, irrespective of the reactivation context. These unexpected findings are discussed in the light of our current experimental parameters and alleged boundary conditions on memory destabilization.

It has been proposed that memory retrieval can destabilize consolidated memories, after which they need to be reconsolidated in order to be retained. The presentation of relevant information during memory reconsolidation could then result in the modification of a destabilized memory trace, by allowing the memory trace to be updated before being reconsolidated. In line with this idea, Schiller et al. (2010) have demonstrated that memory retrieval shortly before extinction training can prevent the later recovery of conditioned fear responding that is observed after regular extinction training. Those findings have been the subject of considerable controversy, due in part to theoretical reasons but also due to a number of failures to obtain similar results in conceptual replication attempts. Here, we report the results of a highly powered, direct, independent replication of the critical conditions of Schiller et al. (2010, Experiment 1). Due to misrepresentation of the exclusion criteria in the original Schiller et al. (2010) report, data collection was considerably delayed. When we eventually managed to attain our pre-registered sample size, we found that we could not observe any benefit of reactivation-extinction over regular extinction training in preventing recovery of conditioned fear. The results of the present study, along with the mixed findings in the literature and the misreporting in Schiller et al. (2010), give cause to question whether there is robust evidence that reactivation-extinction prevents the return of fear in humans.

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.

Behavioral neuroscience is relying more and more on automated behavior assessment, which is often more time-efficient and objective than manual scoring by a human observer. However, parameter adjustment and calibration are a trial-and-error process that requires careful fine-tuning in order to obtain reliable software scores in each context configuration. In this paper, we will pinpoint some caveats regarding the choice of parameters, and give an overview of our own and other researchers' experience with widely used behavioral assessment software. We conclude that, although each researcher should weigh the pros and cons of relying on software vs. manual scoring, we should be aware of possible divergence between both scores, which might be especially relevant when dealing with subtle behavioral effects, like for example in generalization or genetic research.