CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 125Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Updating Fearful Memories with Extinction Training during Reconsolidation: A Human Study Using Auditory Aversive Stimuli

Open access
Oyarzún, Javiera P., Lopez-Barroso, Diana, Fuentemilla, Lluís, Cucurell, David, Pedraza, Carmen, Rodriguez-Fornells, Antoni, de Diego-Balaguer, Ruth·2012·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0038849PMC PMC3387215
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Learning to fear danger in the environment is essential to survival, but dysregulation of the fear system is at the core of many anxiety disorders. As a consequence, a great interest has emerged in developing strategies for suppressing fear memories in maladaptive cases. Recent research has focused in the process of reconsolidation where memories become labile after being retrieved. In a behavioral manipulation, Schiller et al., (2010) reported that extinction training, administrated during memory reconsolidation, could erase fear responses. The implications of this study are crucial for the possible treatment of anxiety disorders without the administration of drugs. However, attempts to replicate this effect by other groups have been so far unsuccessful. We sought out to reproduce Schiller et al., (2010) findings in a different fear conditioning paradigm based on auditory aversive stimuli instead of electric shock. Following a within-subject design, participants were conditioned to two different sounds and skin conductance response (SCR) was recorded as a measure of fear. Our results demonstrated that only the conditioned stimulus that was reminded 10 minutes before extinction training did not reinstate a fear response after a reminder trial consisting of the presentation of the unconditioned stimuli. For the first time, we replicated Schiller et al., (2010) behavioral manipulation and extended it to an auditory fear conditioning paradigm.

Overview

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0038849

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Comparative Experimental Designs of Schiller et al., (2010), current experiment and Kindt et al., (2011). Note that our current design (B) uses a different aversive stimulus modality (sounds instead of electric shocks). It uses a within-subject design and includes a habituation phase for all stimuli. Note that design C (Kind et al., 2011) uses additional measures of fear such as: fear potentiated startle responses and online ratings of US expectancy (in every experimental phase). Design C also uses higher percentage of CS-US pairing, fear relevant pictures instead of colour squares and includes three tests of fear recovery on Day 3 (reinstatement, spontaneous recovery and re-acquisition, last one not shown in the figure). Note also that design C inserts startle probes during CS and NS presentations and during intertrial interval in every experimental phase.
Figure 1 Comparative Experimental Designs of Schiller et al., (2010), current experiment and Kindt et al., (2011). Note that our current design (B) uses a different aversive stimulus modality (sounds instead of electric shocks). It uses a within-subject design and includes a habituation phase for all stimuli. Note that design C (Kind et al., 2011) uses additional measures of fear such as: fear potentiated startle responses and online ratings of US expectancy (in every experimental phase). Design C also uses higher percentage of CS-US pairing, fear relevant pictures instead of colour squares and includes three tests of fear recovery on Day 3 (reinstatement, spontaneous recovery and re-acquisition, last one not shown in the figure). Note also that design C inserts startle probes during CS and NS presentations and during intertrial interval in every experimental phase.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Mean Skin Conductance Response for Acquisition Extinction and Re-Extinction phases. Mean SCRs (reactivated CSa, not reactivated CSb and NS) during Acquisition (mean of the three final trials), Extinction (last trial) and Re-Extinction (first trial). CSs were equally fear conditioned and extinguished. After reinstatement, only CSb showed a significant increment of SCR in Re-Extinction. In contrast, CSa and NS maintained same levels of SCR between Extinction and Re-Extinction. CSa presented a significant reduction of SCR from Acquisition to Re-Extinction. *p<.05. Error bars represent standard errors.
Figure 2 Mean Skin Conductance Response for Acquisition Extinction and Re-Extinction phases. Mean SCRs (reactivated CSa, not reactivated CSb and NS) during Acquisition (mean of the three final trials), Extinction (last trial) and Re-Extinction (first trial). CSs were equally fear conditioned and extinguished. After reinstatement, only CSb showed a significant increment of SCR in Re-Extinction. In contrast, CSa and NS maintained same levels of SCR between Extinction and Re-Extinction. CSa presented a significant reduction of SCR from Acquisition to Re-Extinction. *p<.05. Error bars represent standard errors.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Mean Skin Conductance Response per trials across days. Mean SCRs (reactivated CSa, not reactivated CSb and NS) in non-reinforced trials. CSa and CSb acquired fear conditioning on Acquisition on Day 1. Ten minutes after memory reactivation (of CSa and NS), SCR decreased during Extinction training. On Day 3, ten minutes after reinstatement, CSb recovered fear response in the first trials, whereas CSa maintained equivalent levels of SCR from Extinction to Re-extinction. Error bars represent standard errors.
Figure 3 Mean Skin Conductance Response per trials across days. Mean SCRs (reactivated CSa, not reactivated CSb and NS) in non-reinforced trials. CSa and CSb acquired fear conditioning on Acquisition on Day 1. Ten minutes after memory reactivation (of CSa and NS), SCR decreased during Extinction training. On Day 3, ten minutes after reinstatement, CSb recovered fear response in the first trials, whereas CSa maintained equivalent levels of SCR from Extinction to Re-extinction. Error bars represent standard errors.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 125

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Oyarzún, J. P., Lopez-Barroso, D., Fuentemilla, L., Cucurell, D., Pedraza, C., Rodriguez-Fornells, A., & de Diego-Balaguer, R.
Affiliations
  • Institut d'Investigació Biomédica de Bellvitge (ES)
  • Universidad de Málaga (ES)
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2012-06-29
Volume
7
Issue
6
Pages
e38849
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0038849
PMC
PMC3387215
OpenAlex
W2091957319
Cited by
125
References
64
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 2
FWCI
6.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Dipòsit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona (Universitat de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Generalitat de Catalunya (2009 SGR 93)
  • Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
  • Universitat de Barcelona
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 memory reconsolidation, extinction training, fear extinction, auditory fear conditioning, anxiety disorders, skin conductance response, fear reinstatement, replication, aversive sounds
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Extinction, Psychological, Fear, Female, Galvanic Skin Response, Humans, Male, Memory, Photic Stimulation, Young Adult

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