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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Behavioral neuroscience 2021-10, Vol.135 (5), p.610-621 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
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 |