Back

Impact of the expectation on memory reconsolidation using a post retrieval extinction paradigm

Marinos, J.; Ashbaugh, A.

2020-10-26 animal behavior and cognition
10.1101/2020.10.26.354977 bioRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveThe present study examined if the expectation for learning enhances reconsolidation of conditioned fear memories using the post-retrieval extinction paradigm in an undergraduate sample (n = 48). MethodsThe study took place over three consecutive days. The expectation for learning was manipulated through oral instructions prior to memory reactivation. On day one, participants underwent differential fear conditioning to two spider images (CS+ and CS-). On day two, participants were assigned to either a reactivation with expectation for learning group, a reactivation with no expectation for learning group, or a no reactivation group. On day three, return of fear in response to the CS+ spider image was measured following reinstatement (i.e., four shocks). Fear potentiated startle (FPS) and skin conductance response (SCR) were taken as measures of fear. ResultsThe study found evidence that the expectation for learning may enhanced reconsolidation with FPS as a measure of fear as it was only the expectation for learning group in which FPS to the CS+ remained stable following reinstatement, however this effect was small and non-robust. In contrast, no evidence of reconsolidation was observed for SCR, as all participants exhibited a return of fear following reinstatement. ImplicationsThese findings suggest that a verbal manipulation of the expectation for learning may not be salient enough to induce reconsolidation as measured by SCR but may be sufficient as measured by FPS. Additionally, given in the inconsistent findings between SCR and FPS, the studys results bring into question whether the post-retrieval extinction paradigm is appropriate to investigate reconsolidation using both physiological measures concurrently.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.