Human fear extinction and return of fear using reconsolidation update mechanisms: the contribution of on-line expectancy ratings
Open accessAbstract
Disruption of the reconsolidation of conditioned fear memories has been suggested as a non-pharmacological means of preventing the return of learned fear in human populations. A reconsolidation update paradigm was developed in which a reconsolidation window is opened by a single isolated retrieval trial of a previously reinforced CS+ which is then followed by Extinction Training within that window. However, follow-up studies in humans using multi-methods fear conditioning indices (e.g., fear-potentiated startle, skin conductance, US-expectancy) have failed to replicate the retrieval+extinction effects. In the present study, we further investigated the retrieval+extinction reconsolidation update paradigm by directly comparing the acquisition, extinction, and return of fear-potentiated startle in the absence or presence of US-expectancy measures (using a trial-by-trial response keypad) with and without retrieval of a previously acquired CS-US association. Participants were fear conditioned to two visual cue CS+'s, one of which was presented as a single, isolated retrieval trial before Extinction Training and one that was extinguished as usual. The results show that the inclusion of US-expectancy measures strengthens the CS-US association to provide enhanced fear conditioning and maintenance of fear memories over the experimental sessions. In addition, in the groups that used on-line US-expectancy measures, the retrieval+extinction procedure reduced reinstatement of fear-potentiated startle to both previously reinforced CS+'s, as compared to the extinction as usual group.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The boundary conditions under which retrieval + extinction is effective include the type of psychophysiological measure employed, the schedule of reinforcement used during acquisition, the fear-relevancy of the conditioned stimuli presented, the strength of the fear memory following acquisition, and the presence or absence of on-line measures of expectancy or fear ratings.
“These conditions include, but are not limited to, the type of psychophysiological measure employed, the schedule of reinforcement used during acquisition, the fear-relevancy of the conditioned stimuli presented, the strength of the fear memory following acquisition, and the presence or absence of on-line measures of expectancy or fear ratings [see Ref. (37, 91–93)].”
From Conditioned fear associated phenotypes as robust, translational indices of trauma-, stressor-, and anxiety-related behaviors (2014) · cites this paper as [37]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 68 · Cited by 62
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Pavlov IP Conditioned Reflexes 1927 Oxford University Press
- Authors
- Warren, V. T., Anderson, K. M., Kwon, C., Bosshardt, L., Jovanovic, T., Bradley, B., & Norrholm, S. D.
- Affiliations
- Emory University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Norrholm, Seth Davin
- Venue
- Neurobiology of Learning and Memory
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-09
- Volume
- 113
- Pages
- 165-173
- ISSN
- 1074-7427 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4351258
- OpenAlex
- W1966045854
- Cited by
- 62
- References
- 68
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5
- FWCI
- 2.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Neurobiology of Learning and Memory (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000454)
- National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR025008)
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
- Keywords
- fear extinction, return of fear, fear reconsolidation, fear-potentiated startle, fear conditioning, CS-US association
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Conditioning, Classical, Extinction, Psychological, Fear, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Recall, Reflex, Startle, Young Adult, Anticipation, Psychological
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review