A Reminder Before Extinction Failed to Prevent the Return of Conditioned Threat Responses Irrespective of Threat Memory Intensity in Rats

After retrieval, reactivated memories may destabilize and require restabilization processes to persist, referred to as reconsolidation. The reminder-extinction procedure has been proposed as a behavioral reconsolidation-based intervention to persistently attenuate threat-conditioned memories. After...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Behavioral neuroscience 2021-10, Vol.135 (5), p.610-621
Hauptverfasser: Houtekamer, Maxime C., Henckens, Marloes J. A. G., van den Berg, Koen P., Homberg, Judith, Kroes, Marijn C. W.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 621
container_issue 5
container_start_page 610
container_title Behavioral neuroscience
container_volume 135
creator Houtekamer, Maxime C.
Henckens, Marloes J. A. G.
van den Berg, Koen P.
Homberg, Judith
Kroes, Marijn C. W.
description After retrieval, reactivated memories may destabilize and require restabilization processes to persist, referred to as reconsolidation. The reminder-extinction procedure has been proposed as a behavioral reconsolidation-based intervention to persistently attenuate threat-conditioned memories. After the presentation of a single reminder trial, the conditioned threat memory may enter a labile state, and extinction training during this window can prevent the return of conditioned threat responses. However, findings on this reminder-extinction procedure are mixed and its effectiveness may be subject to boundary conditions, including memory strength. Here, we systematically investigate whether more intense threat memories are less susceptible to disruption through a reminder-extinction procedure. Using a Pavlovian auditory threat conditioning procedure at three different shock intensities, rats acquired conditioned threat responses of variable "strength." Rats subsequently underwent either extinction preceded by a reminder or standard extinction. Although different shock intensities led to different strength threat memories, all groups showed reinstatement of conditioned threat responses irrespective of shock intensity or reminder condition. Hence, regardless of the intensity of the threat memory, the reminder procedure was ineffective in preventing the return of threat responses in rats. We thus find no evidence that threat memory intensity is a potential modulator of the effectiveness of the reminder-extinction procedure.
doi_str_mv 10.1037/bne0000477
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2538050198</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2580728312</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a316t-96bcb94725db9862439d179b24a4a035da351c06a4b27c19dd670b0545468f3a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90c1q3DAQAGBRGuh200ueQJBLKHWjX8s6pkvSLqSkhOQsZHlMFLySK2lD9xH61pXZQKGH6jKC-WaQZhA6o-QzJVxd9gFIPUKpN2hFNdcNIZ14i1ZEcdkoIsQ79D7n58UQIVfo9xW-h50PAyT8BcaYAF__Kj644mPAN9ZPMOAS8Y8ELxAKLk9QC8o-BRxHvIlh8Ius6OEpgS01mecYMmS8TaneoXZ6gQW_gu-wi-mAt6FAyL4csA_43pZ8ik5GO2X48BrX6PHm-mHzrbm9-7rdXN02ltO2NLrtXa-FYnLoddcywfVAle6ZsMISLgfLJXWktaJnylE9DK0iPZFCirYbueVrdHHsO6f4cw-5mJ3PDqbJBoj7bJjkHZGE6q7S83_oc6w_r6-rqiOKdZyy_yuulGCsxjX6eFQuxZwTjGZOfmfTwVBilt2Zv7ur-NMR29maOR-cTcW7CbLb16GGslhDuTTStLX2D6Stmws</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2537742225</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Reminder Before Extinction Failed to Prevent the Return of Conditioned Threat Responses Irrespective of Threat Memory Intensity in Rats</title><source>EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES</source><creator>Houtekamer, Maxime C. ; Henckens, Marloes J. A. G. ; van den Berg, Koen P. ; Homberg, Judith ; Kroes, Marijn C. W.</creator><contributor>Schoenbaum, Geoffrey</contributor><creatorcontrib>Houtekamer, Maxime C. ; Henckens, Marloes J. A. G. ; van den Berg, Koen P. ; Homberg, Judith ; Kroes, Marijn C. W. ; Schoenbaum, Geoffrey</creatorcontrib><description>After retrieval, reactivated memories may destabilize and require restabilization processes to persist, referred to as reconsolidation. The reminder-extinction procedure has been proposed as a behavioral reconsolidation-based intervention to persistently attenuate threat-conditioned memories. After the presentation of a single reminder trial, the conditioned threat memory may enter a labile state, and extinction training during this window can prevent the return of conditioned threat responses. However, findings on this reminder-extinction procedure are mixed and its effectiveness may be subject to boundary conditions, including memory strength. Here, we systematically investigate whether more intense threat memories are less susceptible to disruption through a reminder-extinction procedure. Using a Pavlovian auditory threat conditioning procedure at three different shock intensities, rats acquired conditioned threat responses of variable "strength." Rats subsequently underwent either extinction preceded by a reminder or standard extinction. Although different shock intensities led to different strength threat memories, all groups showed reinstatement of conditioned threat responses irrespective of shock intensity or reminder condition. Hence, regardless of the intensity of the threat memory, the reminder procedure was ineffective in preventing the return of threat responses in rats. We thus find no evidence that threat memory intensity is a potential modulator of the effectiveness of the reminder-extinction procedure.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0735-7044</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-0084</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/bne0000477</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Animal ; Animal memory ; Boundary conditions ; Extinction (Learning) ; Extinction behavior ; Intervention ; Male ; Memory ; Memory Consolidation ; Rats ; Reinstatement ; Reminder effects ; Responses ; Shock ; Threat</subject><ispartof>Behavioral neuroscience, 2021-10, Vol.135 (5), p.610-621</ispartof><rights>2021 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>2021, American Psychological Association</rights><rights>Copyright American Psychological Association Oct 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0000-0002-2375-1611 ; 0000-0002-7621-1010 ; 0000-0003-3364-8551</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27907,27908</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Schoenbaum, Geoffrey</contributor><creatorcontrib>Houtekamer, Maxime C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henckens, Marloes J. A. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van den Berg, Koen P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Homberg, Judith</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kroes, Marijn C. W.</creatorcontrib><title>A Reminder Before Extinction Failed to Prevent the Return of Conditioned Threat Responses Irrespective of Threat Memory Intensity in Rats</title><title>Behavioral neuroscience</title><description>After retrieval, reactivated memories may destabilize and require restabilization processes to persist, referred to as reconsolidation. The reminder-extinction procedure has been proposed as a behavioral reconsolidation-based intervention to persistently attenuate threat-conditioned memories. After the presentation of a single reminder trial, the conditioned threat memory may enter a labile state, and extinction training during this window can prevent the return of conditioned threat responses. However, findings on this reminder-extinction procedure are mixed and its effectiveness may be subject to boundary conditions, including memory strength. Here, we systematically investigate whether more intense threat memories are less susceptible to disruption through a reminder-extinction procedure. Using a Pavlovian auditory threat conditioning procedure at three different shock intensities, rats acquired conditioned threat responses of variable "strength." Rats subsequently underwent either extinction preceded by a reminder or standard extinction. Although different shock intensities led to different strength threat memories, all groups showed reinstatement of conditioned threat responses irrespective of shock intensity or reminder condition. Hence, regardless of the intensity of the threat memory, the reminder procedure was ineffective in preventing the return of threat responses in rats. We thus find no evidence that threat memory intensity is a potential modulator of the effectiveness of the reminder-extinction procedure.</description><subject>Animal</subject><subject>Animal memory</subject><subject>Boundary conditions</subject><subject>Extinction (Learning)</subject><subject>Extinction behavior</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Memory</subject><subject>Memory Consolidation</subject><subject>Rats</subject><subject>Reinstatement</subject><subject>Reminder effects</subject><subject>Responses</subject><subject>Shock</subject><subject>Threat</subject><issn>0735-7044</issn><issn>1939-0084</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp90c1q3DAQAGBRGuh200ueQJBLKHWjX8s6pkvSLqSkhOQsZHlMFLySK2lD9xH61pXZQKGH6jKC-WaQZhA6o-QzJVxd9gFIPUKpN2hFNdcNIZ14i1ZEcdkoIsQ79D7n58UQIVfo9xW-h50PAyT8BcaYAF__Kj644mPAN9ZPMOAS8Y8ELxAKLk9QC8o-BRxHvIlh8Ius6OEpgS01mecYMmS8TaneoXZ6gQW_gu-wi-mAt6FAyL4csA_43pZ8ik5GO2X48BrX6PHm-mHzrbm9-7rdXN02ltO2NLrtXa-FYnLoddcywfVAle6ZsMISLgfLJXWktaJnylE9DK0iPZFCirYbueVrdHHsO6f4cw-5mJ3PDqbJBoj7bJjkHZGE6q7S83_oc6w_r6-rqiOKdZyy_yuulGCsxjX6eFQuxZwTjGZOfmfTwVBilt2Zv7ur-NMR29maOR-cTcW7CbLb16GGslhDuTTStLX2D6Stmws</recordid><startdate>202110</startdate><enddate>202110</enddate><creator>Houtekamer, Maxime C.</creator><creator>Henckens, Marloes J. A. G.</creator><creator>van den Berg, Koen P.</creator><creator>Homberg, Judith</creator><creator>Kroes, Marijn C. W.</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QR</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2375-1611</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7621-1010</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3364-8551</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202110</creationdate><title>A Reminder Before Extinction Failed to Prevent the Return of Conditioned Threat Responses Irrespective of Threat Memory Intensity in Rats</title><author>Houtekamer, Maxime C. ; Henckens, Marloes J. A. G. ; van den Berg, Koen P. ; Homberg, Judith ; Kroes, Marijn C. W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a316t-96bcb94725db9862439d179b24a4a035da351c06a4b27c19dd670b0545468f3a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Animal</topic><topic>Animal memory</topic><topic>Boundary conditions</topic><topic>Extinction (Learning)</topic><topic>Extinction behavior</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Memory</topic><topic>Memory Consolidation</topic><topic>Rats</topic><topic>Reinstatement</topic><topic>Reminder effects</topic><topic>Responses</topic><topic>Shock</topic><topic>Threat</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Houtekamer, Maxime C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henckens, Marloes J. A. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van den Berg, Koen P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Homberg, Judith</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kroes, Marijn C. W.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>APA PsycArticles®</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Chemoreception Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Behavioral neuroscience</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Houtekamer, Maxime C.</au><au>Henckens, Marloes J. A. G.</au><au>van den Berg, Koen P.</au><au>Homberg, Judith</au><au>Kroes, Marijn C. W.</au><au>Schoenbaum, Geoffrey</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Reminder Before Extinction Failed to Prevent the Return of Conditioned Threat Responses Irrespective of Threat Memory Intensity in Rats</atitle><jtitle>Behavioral neuroscience</jtitle><date>2021-10</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>135</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>610</spage><epage>621</epage><pages>610-621</pages><issn>0735-7044</issn><eissn>1939-0084</eissn><abstract>After retrieval, reactivated memories may destabilize and require restabilization processes to persist, referred to as reconsolidation. The reminder-extinction procedure has been proposed as a behavioral reconsolidation-based intervention to persistently attenuate threat-conditioned memories. After the presentation of a single reminder trial, the conditioned threat memory may enter a labile state, and extinction training during this window can prevent the return of conditioned threat responses. However, findings on this reminder-extinction procedure are mixed and its effectiveness may be subject to boundary conditions, including memory strength. Here, we systematically investigate whether more intense threat memories are less susceptible to disruption through a reminder-extinction procedure. Using a Pavlovian auditory threat conditioning procedure at three different shock intensities, rats acquired conditioned threat responses of variable "strength." Rats subsequently underwent either extinction preceded by a reminder or standard extinction. Although different shock intensities led to different strength threat memories, all groups showed reinstatement of conditioned threat responses irrespective of shock intensity or reminder condition. Hence, regardless of the intensity of the threat memory, the reminder procedure was ineffective in preventing the return of threat responses in rats. We thus find no evidence that threat memory intensity is a potential modulator of the effectiveness of the reminder-extinction procedure.</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><doi>10.1037/bne0000477</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2375-1611</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7621-1010</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3364-8551</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0735-7044
ispartof Behavioral neuroscience, 2021-10, Vol.135 (5), p.610-621
issn 0735-7044
1939-0084
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2538050198
source EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES
subjects Animal
Animal memory
Boundary conditions
Extinction (Learning)
Extinction behavior
Intervention
Male
Memory
Memory Consolidation
Rats
Reinstatement
Reminder effects
Responses
Shock
Threat
title A Reminder Before Extinction Failed to Prevent the Return of Conditioned Threat Responses Irrespective of Threat Memory Intensity in Rats
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T01%3A54%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Reminder%20Before%20Extinction%20Failed%20to%20Prevent%20the%20Return%20of%20Conditioned%20Threat%20Responses%20Irrespective%20of%20Threat%20Memory%20Intensity%20in%20Rats&rft.jtitle=Behavioral%20neuroscience&rft.au=Houtekamer,%20Maxime%20C.&rft.date=2021-10&rft.volume=135&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=610&rft.epage=621&rft.pages=610-621&rft.issn=0735-7044&rft.eissn=1939-0084&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/bne0000477&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2580728312%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2537742225&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true