Unconditioned Stimulus Revaluation to Promote Conditioned Fear Extinction in the Memory Reconsolidation Window

Zeng, Xiang-Xing; Du, J.; Chuqun, Zhuang; Zhang, Junhua; Jia, Yan-Lei; Zheng, Xifu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0101589

Cited by 16 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A minimum response criterion of 0.02μs was applied in this study. Participants who did not show an SCR above this minimum on the acquisition trials were scored as zero and included in the analysis, consistent with recent studies [ 59 – 61 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Updating versus Exposure to Prevent Consolidation of Conditioned Fear

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Targeting the consolidation of fear memories following trauma may offer a promising method for preventing the development of flashbacks and other unwanted re-experiencing symptoms that characterise Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Research has demonstrated that performing visuo-spatial tasks after analogue trauma can block the consolidation of fear memory and reduce the frequency of flashbacks. However, no research has yet used verbal techniques to alter memories during the consolidation window. This is surprising given that the most effective treatments for PTSD are verbally-based with exposure therapy and trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy gaining the most evidence of efficacy. Psychological therapies aim to reduce the conditioned fear response, which is in keeping with the preliminary finding that an increased propensity for fear conditioning may be a vulnerability factor for PTSD. Our research had two aims. We investigated the degree to which individual differences in fear conditioning predict the development of PTSD symptoms. We also compared the preventative effects of two clinically informed psychological techniques administered during the consolidation window: exposure to the trauma memory and updating the meaning of the trauma. 115 healthy participants underwent a fear conditioning paradigm in which traumatic film stimuli (unconditioned stimuli) were paired with neutral stimuli (conditioned stimuli). Participants were randomly allocated to an updating, exposure or control group to compare the effects on the conditioned fear response and on PTSD symptomatology. The results showed that stronger conditioned responses at acquisition significantly predicted the development of PTSD symptoms. The updating group, who verbally devalued the unconditioned stimulus within the consolidation window, experienced significantly lower levels of PTSD symptoms during follow-up than the exposure and control groups. These findings are consistent with clinical interventions for chronic PTSD and have important implications for identifying those at risk as well as for designing novel early interventions to prevent the development of PTSD.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Updating versus Exposure to Prevent Consolidation of Conditioned Fear

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This finding is in line with configural theories of associative learning, which assume that stimuli acquire associations as a whole, but the generalization is determined by the proportion of unique versus common features ( Pearce, 1987 ). In differential CS+/CS- conditioning, the CS+ acquires excitatory strength (fear-eliciting properties) and the CS- acquires inhibitory strength (safety-eliciting properties) ( Vervliet and Geens, 2014 ; Zeng et al, 2014 ). Depending on the similarity of the CS+/CS-, the CS+ receives generalized inhibitory strength from the CS- and excitation strength from the CS+.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A minimum response criterion of 0.02 microsiemens (μS) was used ( Wolfram et al, 2012 ). All other responses were scored as zero and remained in the analyses ( Effting and Kindt, 2007 ; Kindt and Soeter, 2013 ; Zeng et al, 2014 ). The raw SCR scores were square-root transformed to normalize the distribution ( Schultz et al, 2013 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Topological Properties of Stimuli Influence Fear Generalization and Extinction in Humans

Xie

et al. 2018

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fear generalization is an etiologically significant indicator of anxiety disorders, and understanding how to inhibit it is important in their treatment. Prior studies have found that reducing fear generalization using a generalization stimulus (GS) is ineffective in removing a conditioned fear that incorporates local features, and that topological properties appear to play a comparatively more significant role in the processes of perception and categorization. Our study utilized a conditioned-fear generalization design to examine whether the topological properties of stimuli influence the generalization and return of fear. Fear was indexed using online expectancy ratings and skin conductance responses (SCRs). The study’s 52 participants were divided into three groups: Group 1, conditioned danger cue (CS+) extinction; Group 2, extinction of one GS; Group 3, extinction of three GSs. We found that the three groups acquired conditioned fear at the same level. In the generalization and extinction phase, fear was transferred to the GS with the same topological properties as CS+, and gradual decreases in both shock expectancy and SCRs over non-reinforced extinction trials were observed. In the test phase, participants’ online expectancy ratings indicated that fear did not return in Group 1, but did return in Groups 2 and 3. All three groups demonstrated successful GS fear extinction, but only Group 1 did not show a return of fear for CS+. Regarding SCRs results, none of the groups demonstrated a return of fear, suggesting that utilization of topological properties successfully reduced the return of conditioned fear. Our results indicate that, in clinical settings, using GS with topological equivalence to CS+ might offer a potential method with which to extinct conditioned fear.

show abstract

“…Thus, exposure to novel information may catalyze the reconsolidation process, making the original memory labile to allow the new information to be incorporated. A number of studies now show that the new information presented at retrieval can fundamentally alter the content of the original memory (Jarome et al, 2015;Kwapis et al, 2017Kwapis et al, , 2020Lee, 2010), and this updating process has been leveraged to modify the emotional tone of a memory (Cogan, Shapses, Robinson, & Tronson, 2019;Goltseker, Levi, & Barak, 2017;Haubrich et al, 2015;Zeng et al, 2014), improve extinction (Clem & Huganir, 2010;Monfils, Cowansage, Klann, & LeDoux, 2009;Schiller et al, 2010), or even alter the neural circuitry that supports a memory (Kwapis et al, 2017;Winters, Tucci, Jacklin, Reid, & Newsome, 2011).…”

Section: Background Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating Memory Updating in Mice Using the Objects in Updated Locations Task

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the laboratory, memory is typically studied as a de novo experience, in which a naïve animal is exposed to a discrete learning event that is markedly different from its past experiences. Most real‐world memories, however, are updates—modifications or additions—to existing memories. This is particularly true in the aging, experienced brain. To better understand memory updating, we have developed a new behavioral paradigm called the objects in updated locations (OUL) task. OUL relies on hippocampus‐dependent spatial learning and has the advantage of being able to test both the original memory and the updated information in a single test session. Further, OUL relies on incidental learning that avoids unnecessary stress that might hinder the performance of aging animals. In OUL, animals first learn the location of two identical objects in a familiar context. This memory is then updated by moving one object to a new location. Finally, to assess the animals’ memory for the original and the updated information, all animals are given a test session in which they are exposed to four copies of the object: two in the original training locations, one in the updated location, and one in a novel location. By comparing exploration of the novel location to the familiar locations, we can infer whether the animal remembers the original and updated object locations. OUL is a simple but powerful task that could provide new insights into the cellular, circuit‐level, and molecular mechanisms that support memory updating. © 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

show abstract

Unconditioned Stimulus Revaluation to Promote Conditioned Fear Extinction in the Memory Reconsolidation Window

Cited by 16 publications

References 35 publications

Updating versus Exposure to Prevent Consolidation of Conditioned Fear

Updating versus Exposure to Prevent Consolidation of Conditioned Fear

The Topological Properties of Stimuli Influence Fear Generalization and Extinction in Humans

Investigating Memory Updating in Mice Using the Objects in Updated Locations Task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About