↓ Skip to main content

Retrieval cues that trigger reconsolidation of associative fear memory are not necessarily an exact replica of the original learning experience

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Retrieval cues that trigger reconsolidation of associative fear memory are not necessarily an exact replica of the original learning experience
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00122
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marieke Soeter, Merel Kindt

Abstract

Disrupting the process of memory reconsolidation may point to a novel therapeutic strategy for the permanent reduction of fear in patients suffering from anxiety disorders. However both in animal and human studies the retrieval cue typically involves a re-exposure to the original fear-conditioned stimulus (CS). A relevant question is whether abstract cues not directly associated with the threat event also trigger reconsolidation, given that anxiety disorders often result from vicarious or unobtrusive learning for which no explicit memory exists. Insofar as the fear memory involves a flexible representation of the original learning experience, we hypothesized that the process of memory reconsolidation may also be triggered by abstract cues. We addressed this hypothesis by using a differential human fear-conditioning procedure in two distinct fear-learning groups. We predicted that if fear learning involves discrimination on basis of perceptual cues within one semantic category (i.e., the perceptual-learning group, n = 15), the subsequent ambiguity of the abstract retrieval cue would not trigger memory reconsolidation. In contrast, if fear learning involves discriminating between two semantic categories (i.e., categorical-learning group, n = 15), an abstract retrieval cue would unequivocally reactivate the fear memory and might subsequently trigger memory reconsolidation. Here we show that memory reconsolidation may indeed be triggered by another cue than the one that was present during the original learning occasion, but this effect depends on the learning history. Evidence for fear memory reconsolidation was inferred from the fear-erasing effect of one pill of propranolol (40 mg) systemically administered upon exposure to the abstract retrieval cue. Our finding that reconsolidation of a specific fear association does not require exposure to the original retrieval cue supports the feasibility of reconsolidation-based interventions for emotional disorders.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 98 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 29%
Student > Master 16 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Researcher 10 10%
Professor 5 5%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 14 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 45 45%
Neuroscience 9 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Unspecified 5 5%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 23 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 May 2015.
All research outputs
#13,739,018
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#1,713
of 3,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,757
of 265,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#51
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,165 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,520 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.