Cited by 40Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research

The role of prediction error and memory destabilization in extinction of cued-fear within the reconsolidation window

Open access
Cahill, Emma N., Wood, Melissa A., Everitt, Barry J., Milton, Amy L.·2019·Neuropsychopharmacology

Abstract

Extinction of a cued-fear memory within the reconsolidation window has been proposed to prevent fear reacquisition by reconsolidation interference. This 'retrieval-extinction' procedure has received interest for its therapeutic potential to reduce the impact of fear memories on behavior. To fully exploit its therapeutic potential, it is critical to understand the mechanisms that underlie the 'retrieval-extinction' effect. If the effect depends upon reconsolidation of the original memory, then it would be predicted that destabilization, induced by prediction error, would be critical for observing the effect. Here, the dependency of the retrieval-extinction effect on memory destabilization or prediction error was investigated in pavlovian cued-fear conditioned adult male rats. The requirement for memory destabilization, and thus reconsolidation, for the retrieval-extinction effect was subsequently investigated using region-specific pharmacological blockade of dopamine D1-receptors. Intra-basolateral amygdala antagonism of dopamine D1-receptors did not prevent the reacquisition of fear associated with the retrieval-extinction procedure. The requirement for prediction error was assessed by using a reinforced or non-reinforced memory retrieval trial before extinction, compared to a no-retrieval, extinction-only control. Both the reinforced (no prediction error) and non-reinforced retrieval sessions led to a decrease in fear reacquisition, suggesting that engagement of prediction error does not influence the occurrence of retrieval-extinction. Together, these data suggest that retrieval-extinction does not require memory destabilization, since behavioral or pharmacological interventions that prevent destabilization did not disrupt any capacity to attenuate fear.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41386-018-0299-y

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • GluN2B-selective NMDAR antagonists given 1 h before extinction training do not block acquisition of the extinction memory.

    “though not 1 h before training (Cahill et al., 2019)”

    From Retrieval-Dependent Mechanisms Affecting Emotional Memory Persistence: Reconsolidation, Extinction, and the Space in Between (2020) · cites this paper as Cahill et al., 2019

    The Materials and methods (Intracranial drug infusions and Behavioral procedures; page not specified) say drugs were infused immediately before reactivation and extinction training occurred one hour later. The Results (Antagonism of intra-BLA D1R signaling; page not specified) identify ifenprodil as a GluN2B antagonist, but report its effect on fear reacquisition, not whether it blocked acquisition of extinction memory. The reported extinction outcomes concern the D1R antagonist, so they cannot establish that outcome for ifenprodil. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [18]Milton AL Merlo E Ratano P Gregory BL Dumbreck JK Everitt BJ Double dissociation of the requirement for GluN2B- and GluN2A-containing NMDA receptors in the destabilization and restabilization of a reconsolidating memory J Neurosci 2013 33 1109 15 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3273-12.2013 23325248 PMC4241020 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cahill, E. N., Wood, M. A., Everitt, B. J., & Milton, A. L.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Cahill, Emma N.
Venue
Neuropsychopharmacology
Published
2018-12-20
Volume
44
Issue
10
Pages
1762-1768
ISSN
  • 0893-133X (ISSN-L)
  • 1740-634X
OpenAlex
W2904921863
Cited by
40
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3
FWCI
1.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuropsychopharmacology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
  • RCUK | Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/M01407X/1)
  • RCUK | Medical Research Council (G1002231)
  • Overseas Research Scholarship
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, memory reconsolidation, prediction error, memory destabilization, dopamine D1 receptor, basolateral amygdala, fear conditioning, memory retrieval, extinction therapy
MeSH terms
Animals, Conditioning, Classical, Cues, Extinction, Psychological, Fear, Male, Memory, Mental Recall, Reinforcement, Psychology, Receptors, Dopamine D1, Rats, Basolateral Nuclear Complex

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