Counterconditioning of memory in rats

Abstract

Two experiments examined the counterconditioning of an aversively motivated response in rats. Presentation of a highly palatable sugar solution (maltose in Experiment 1; sucrose in Experiment 2) to thirsty rats was used as the counterconditioning treatment. In Experiment 1, the counterconditioning procedure was found to be effective in modifying both a newly acquired and a cue-reactivated fear memory. In Experiment 2, the counterconditioning effect was shown to occur when the fear memory was reactivated with a noncontingent exposure to the unconditioned stimulus rather than the conditioned stimulus. This outcome supports the interpretation of counterconditioning as a modification of some central representation of the original training memory, rather than the acquisition of a competing peripheral response. The methodological implications of the present approach to counterconditioning are considered.

An appetitive experience after fear memory destabilization attenuates fear retention: involvement GluN2B-NMDA receptors in the Basolateral Amygdala Complex

“…This procedure can lead to either proactive interference or retroactive interference on the acquisition or expression of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press on May 9, 2018 -Published by learnmem.cshlp.org Downloaded from the second or first association (Bouton 1993). Richardson et al (1982Richardson et al ( , 1987, using a similar approach to that reported here but with different experimental tasks, arrived to similar results. The authors argued that counterconditioning procedures can change the hedonic value of the information contained in the reactivated memory.…”

Counterconditioning

“…Counterconditioning has also been utilized in psychotherapeutic practice through procedures such as systematic desensitization (Davidson 1968). Several researchers have found that the originally acquired association is not destroyed when an organism is presented with a new US Peck 1989, 1992;Bromage and Scavio 1978;Krank 1985;Scavio 1974), whereas other researchers have found that counterconditioning can modify some aspects of the originally acquired association (Richardson et al 1987). Based on these equivocal findings, future research would benefit from exploring the relationship between counterconditioning and the length of the retention interval prior to testing.…”

“…However, research by Richardson et al (1987) challenged these findings through evidence that counterconditioning can modify the retention of previously acquired fear responses in an aversiveto-appetitive paradigm in rats. In this study, retention testing occurred the next day after counterconditioning in comparison to Bouton and Peck's (1992) experiment, which interpolated a 28-day retention period prior to testing.…”

“…Counterconditioning occurs when a response to a stimulus is modified by pairing that stimulus with another stimulus of an opposite emotional significance (Richardson et al 1987). This occurrence results as an alternative conditioned response to the original stimulus (Lane 2009;Pearce and Dickinson 1975;Richardson et al 1987).…”

“…Counterconditioning occurs when a response to a stimulus is modified by pairing that stimulus with another stimulus of an opposite emotional significance (Richardson et al 1987). This occurrence results as an alternative conditioned response to the original stimulus (Lane 2009;Pearce and Dickinson 1975;Richardson et al 1987). Counterconditioning can involve two distinct scenarios: (a) a previously appetitive response can become aversive (i.e., appetitive-to-aversive counterconditioning) or (b) a previously aversive response can become appetitive (i.e., aversive-toappetitive counterconditioning).…”