Interfering with emotional processing resources upon associative threat memory reactivation does not affect memory retention

Abstract

Ample evidence suggests that memories enter a labile state upon retrieval, requiring reconsolidation processes in order to be retained. During this period of instability, various interventions can be applied to modify problematic memories. A novel behavioral intervention was designed, aimed at disrupting amygdala-based cognitive processing following the retrieval of a conditioned threat memory, in order to prevent its reconsolidation. We fear-conditioned participants on day 1, and reactivated their memory on day 2. Following reactivation, the reactivation plus emotional working memory task (R + EWMT) group completed an EWMT, while the reactivation only (RO) group served as a no-task control. On day 3, all participants were tested for memory retention, followed by a test for sensitivity to reinstatement. We observed successful acquisition and reactivation in fear-potentiated startle responding, skin conductance responding and US expectancies in both groups. Differential fear responding was fully preserved in the R + EWMT group relative to the RO group at the beginning of retention testing, and both groups were comparably sensitive to reinstatement. Thus, we failed to obtain any evidence that the execution of an EWMT after threat memory reactivation impairs reconsolidation. Further research is indicated to clarify whether threat memory reconsolidation can be disrupted by taxing relevant WM resources.

State-Dependent TMS over Prefrontal Cortex Disrupts Fear-Memory Reconsolidation and Prevents the Return of Fear

“…Regarding the putative brain mechanisms underlying our findings, the dlPFC is particularly central to the control of memory retrieval with respect to the actual context, the maintenance and processing of retrieved information in working memory, and the evaluation and monitoring of reactivated memories. At a cognitive level, reconsolidation has been suggested to critically depend on active working memory processing (e.g., rehearsal ll Current Biology 30, 3672-3679, September 21, 2020 3675 Report [30,31], but see also [32]). Accordingly, in the present study, interference with dlPFC activity during the reconsolidation window might have substantially reduced the allocation of working memory resources needed for the re-storage and retention of the destabilized memory, thus leading to disruption of the original memory trace.…”

No evidence for disruption of reconsolidation of conditioned threat memories with a cognitively demanding intervention

“…A recent study investigated this by employing a threat conditioning paradigm 35 . Following memory reactivation of a conditioned stimulus (CS) that was previously associated with an aversive event (i.e.…”

“…In contrast to earlier studies that typically utilized non-emotional tasks as an intervention (e.g. 1 , 22 – 26 , 32 , 33 ), the authors 35 instead made use of a cognitively demanding intervention with emotional pictures and neutral faces. As the presentation of emotional stimuli have been shown to increase amygdala activity 37 – 39 it is possible that their task engaged the amygdala during the critical re-stabilization phase, instead of inhibiting it.…”

Tackling fear: Beyond associative memory activation as the only determinant of fear responding

“…For example, it has been suggested that administration of propranolol (i.e., a β-adrenergic receptor antagonist) before presenting a fear-conditioned CS can reduce fear responding and its return (Kindt, Soeter, & Vervliet, 2009; but see Schroyens, Beckers, & Kindt, 2017). Similarly, playing Tetris after presentation of a CS has been reported to reduce fear responding (de Voogd, Hermans, & Phelps, 2018;James et al, 2015; but see Chalkia, Vanaken, Fonteyne, & Beckers, 2019). Finally, inserting a break after a single CS-only presentation before continuing with regular extinction training has been reported to reduce return of fear after extinction training (Monfils, Cowansage, Klann, & Ledoux, 2009;Schiller et al 2010; but see Luyten & Beckers, 2017).…”