Exploring the boundaries of post-retrieval extinction in healthy and anxious individuals

Novelty-retrieval-extinction paradigm to decrease high-intensity fear memory recurrence

BACKGROUND

The retrieval-extinction paradigm based on memory reconsolidation can prevent fear memory recurrence more effectively than the extinction paradigm. High-intensity fear memories tend to resist reconsolidation. Novelty-retrieval-extinction can promote the reconsolidation of fear memory lacking neuroplasticity in rodents; however, whether it could effectively promote high-intensity fear memory reconsolidation in humans remains unclear.

METHODS

Using 120 human participants, we implemented the use of the environment (novel vs. familiar) with the help of virtual reality technology. Novelty environment exploration was combined with retrieval-extinction in fear memory of two intensity levels (normal vs. high) to examine whether novelty facilitates the reconsolidation of high-intensity fear memory and prevents recurrence. Skin conductance responses were used to clarify novelty-retrieval-extinction effects at the behavioral level across three experiments.

RESULTS

Retrieval-extinction could prevent the reinstatement of normal-intensity fear memory; however, for high-intensity fear memory, only the novelty-retrieval-extinction could prevent recurrence; we further validated that novelty-retrieval-extinction may be effective only when the environment is novel.

LIMITATIONS

Although the high-intensity fear memory is higher than normal-intensity in this study, it may be insufficient relative to fear experienced in real-world contexts or by individuals with mental disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

To some extent, these findings indicate that the novelty-retrieval-extinction paradigm could prevent the recurrence of high-intensity fear memory, and we infer that novelty of environment may play an important role in novelty-retrieval-extinction paradigm. The results of this study have positive implications for the existing retrieval extinction paradigm and the clinical treatment of phobia.

Carbon Dioxide Reactivity Differentially Predicts Fear Expression After Extinction and Retrieval-Extinction in Rats

Background

Cues present during a traumatic event may result in persistent fear responses. These responses can be attenuated through extinction learning, a core component of exposure therapy. Exposure/extinction is effective for some people, but not all. We recently demonstrated that carbon dioxide (CO2) reactivity predicts fear extinction memory and orexin activation and that orexin activation predicts fear extinction memory, which suggests that a CO2 challenge may enable identification of whether an individual is a good candidate for an extinction-based approach. Another method to attenuate conditioned responses, retrieval-extinction, renders the original associative memory labile via distinct neural mechanisms. The purpose of the current study was to examine whether we could replicate previous findings that retrieval-extinction is more effective than extinction at preventing the return of fear and that CO2 reactivity predicts fear memory after extinction. We also examined whether CO2 reactivity predicts fear memory after retrieval-extinction.

Methods

Male rats first underwent a CO2 challenge and fear conditioning and were assigned to receive either standard extinction (n = 28) or retrieval-extinction (n = 28). Then, they underwent a long-term memory (LTM) test and a reinstatement test.

Results

We found that retrieval-extinction resulted in lower freezing during extinction, LTM, and reinstatement than standard extinction. Using the best subset approach to linear regression, we found that CO2 reactivity predicted LTM after extinction and also predicted LTM after retrieval-extinction, although to a lesser degree.

Conclusions

CO2 reactivity could be used as a screening tool to determine whether an individual may be a good candidate for an extinction-based therapeutic approach.

Manipulating critical memory periods to treat psychiatry disorders

The persistence of pathological memory is the basis of several psychiatric disorders. Memory retrieval induces "reconsolidation", a time interval during which the original memory becomes labile and destabilized. Time- and retrieval-dependent processes and memory reconsolidation are critical periods for memory interference. Modulating memory reconsolidation has received considerable research attention as a treatment protocol for several psychiatric conditions such as posttraumatic stress disorder, addiction, anxiety, and trauma-related disorders. This specific time window provides an opportunity for intervention regarding mental diseases. This article reviews the effect of modulating memory reconsolidation using behavioral-, brain stimulation-, and pharmacological-based interventions, which may help bridge the gap between intervention in laboratories and application in clinical practice. The potential advantages, limitations, challenges, and opportunities for memory reconsolidation manipulations were discussed.

Using pre-treatment de novo threat conditioning outcomes to predict treatment response to DCS augmentation of exposure-based CBT

BACKGROUND

Over a decade and a half of research has resulted in inconsistent evidence for the efficacy of d-cycloserine (DCS), a partial glutamatergic N-methyl-D-aspartate agonist, for augmenting exposure-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for anxiety- and fear-based disorders. These variable findings have motivated the search for moderators of DCS augmentation efficacy.

METHODS

In this secondary analysis of a previous randomized clinical trial, we evaluated the value of de novo threat conditioning outcomes-degree of threat acquisition, extinction, and extinction retention-for predicting treatment response to exposure-based CBT for social anxiety disorder, applied with and without DCS augmentation in a sample of 59 outpatients.

RESULTS

We found that average differential skin conductance response (SCR) during extinction and extinction retention significantly moderated the prediction of clinical response to DCS: participants with poorer extinction and extinction retention showed relatively improved treatment response with DCS. No such effects were found for expectancy ratings, consistent with accounts of DCS selectively aiding lower-order but not higher-order extinction learning.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide support for extinction and extinction retention outcomes from threat conditioning as potential pre-treatment biomarkers for DCS augmentation benefits. Independent of DCS augmentation, the current study did not support threat conditioning outcomes as useful for predicting response to exposure-based CBT.

Understanding clinical fear and anxiety through the lens of human fear conditioning

Fear is an adaptive emotion that mobilizes defensive resources upon confrontation with danger. However, fear becomes maladaptive and can give rise to the development of clinical anxiety when it exceeds the degree of threat, generalizes broadly across stimuli and contexts, persists after the danger is gone or promotes excessive avoidance behaviour. Pavlovian fear conditioning has been the prime research instrument that has led to substantial progress in understanding the multi-faceted psychological and neurobiological mechanisms of fear in past decades. In this Perspective, we suggest that fruitful use of Pavlovian fear conditioning as a laboratory model of clinical anxiety requires moving beyond the study of fear acquisition to associated fear conditioning phenomena: fear extinction, generalization of conditioned fear and fearful avoidance. Understanding individual differences in each of these phenomena, not only in isolation but also in how they interact, will further strengthen the external validity of the fear conditioning model as a tool with which to study maladaptive fear as it manifests in clinical anxiety.

Reconsolidation and Fear Extinction: An Update

Fear memories can be updated behaviorally by delivering extinction trials during the reconsolidation window, which results in a persistent attenuation of fear memories (Monfils et al., Science 324:951-955, 2009). This safe and non-invasive paradigm, termed retrieval-extinction (or post-retrieval extinction), has also been found to be successful at preventing the return of fear in healthy fear conditioned humans (Schiller et al., Nature 463:49-53, 2010), and in the time since its discovery, there has been an explosion of research on the use of retrieval-extinction in fear memories in humans and other animals, some of which have found a long-term reduction in conditioned responding, and some who have not. These discrepant findings have raised concerns as to whether retrieval-extinction really results in updating of the original fear memory, or if it simply enhances extinction. We will first review the progress made on elucidating the cellular mechanisms underlying the fear attenuating effects of retrieval-extinction and how they differ from traditional extinction. Special attention will be paid to the molecular events necessary for retrieval-extinction to successfully occur and how these reconsolidated memories are represented in the brain. Next, we will examine the parameters that determine whether or not a memory will be updated via extinction during the reconsolidation window (also known as boundary conditions). These boundary conditions will also be discussed as possible explanations for discrepant findings of the retrieval-extinction effect. Then we will examine the factors that can determine whether an individual's fears will successfully be attenuated by retrieval-extinction. These individual differences include genetics, age, and psychopathology. Finally, we will discuss recent attempts to bring the retrieval-extinction paradigm from the bench to the bedside for the behavioral treatment of anxiety and trauma disorders.

Skin conductance levels and responses in Asian and White participants during fear conditioning✰

Fear conditioning paradigms are frequently used in the translational study of anxiety and fear-related disorders. Accordingly, it is important to understand whether the measurement of fear conditioning responses is systematically influenced by an individual's race. Studies have found increased pain sensitivity and smaller physiological startle responses in Asian individuals, compared to White individuals; to our knowledge, no studies have evaluated whether skin conductance response (SCR) outcomes differ between Asian and White individuals. In a series of secondary data analyses, we investigated potential differences in skin conductance level (SCL), orienting SCR, unconditioned SCR, SCR to CS+ and CS-, differential SCR, and differential SCR non-responder status. In sample 1, Asian participants (n = 97) demonstrated a significantly smaller mean differential SCR compared to White participants (n = 86). No other between group differences were observed. In sample 2, there was no difference in mean differential SCR between Asian (n = 52) and White (n = 62) participants, although more Asian participants failed to show adequate skin conductance levels for study entry. To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate differences between Asian and White samples using skin conductance outcomes in a fear conditioning paradigm. We detected only subtle evidence for SCR differences between Asian and White samples, unlikely to reach significance outside large studies.

The influence of dispositional cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression on post-retrieval and standard extinction

Individual differences in the ability to habitually regulate emotion may impact the efficacy of fear memory extinction. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between dispositional cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression with post-retrieval and standard extinction. Fear memory and extinction were measured with the recovery of skin conductance responses. We also examined the relationship between a temporal feature of electrodermal responding (half-recovery time) and each of the emotion regulation strategies. University students (N = 80) underwent a three-day fear conditioning procedure using a within-subject design consisting of acquisition on day one, post-retrieval extinction and standard extinction on day two, and recovery test on day three. Individual difference data on self-reported levels of cognitive reappraisal, expressive suppression, trait anxiety, and depression were collected. We did not detect a relationship between the two emotion regulation strategies measured in this study and acquisition or extinction. We found, however, that increased dispositional use of cognitive reappraisal was associated with lower spontaneous recovery to both the post-retrieval extinction and standard extinction stimulus after controlling for age, trait anxiety, and depression. There were no associations between expressive suppression and conditioned responses. We also observed patterns of faster dissipation of arousal for reappraisal and slower for suppression to the conditioned stimulus during extinction training, which may represent the unique influence of each emotion strategy on the regulation of fear. We conclude greater daily use of cognitive reappraisal, but not expressive suppression, associates with extinction retention after receiving both standard and post-retrieval extinction.

Can contingency rehearsal during the interval between a retrieval cue and extinction training change the effects of post-retrieval extinction?

Return of fear may be prevented by post-retrieval extinction (PRE), a procedure consisting of presenting a stimulus that was present during conditioning (retrieval cue) prior to extinction training. However, recent evidence suggests that there might be circumstances under which PRE is not effective to prevent the return of fear (boundary conditions), but some of these conditions remain unknown. We explored if rehearsing the CS, US or CS-US contingency during the interval between the retrieval cue and extinction training might change the effects of PRE. One day after differential fear conditioning, healthy human participants (n = 83) underwent either standard extinction (control condition, n = 31) or two different PRE procedures, one in which participants rehearsed the CS-US contingency during the interval between the retrieval cue and extinction (rehearsal condition, n = 25), or another in which they underwent a verbal fluency task directing their attention away from the experimental contingencies during this interval (nonrehearsal condition, n = 27). Return of fear in a reinstatement test was observed in both control and rehearsal conditions, whereas in the nonrehearsal condition there was a generalized increase in response to the CS+ and CS-. Differential response in the rehearsal condition had values slightly smaller than the control group with no significant differences from both control and nonrehearsal conditions. These results suggest that the overt behavior of participants during the interval between a retrieval cue and extinction training might change the effects of PRE in healthy human participants, but further manipulations of these variables are needed to confirm these findings.

Destabilizing Different Strengths of Fear Memories Requires Different Degrees of Prediction Error During Retrieval

Reactivation of consolidated memories can induce a labile period, in which these reactivated memories might be susceptible to change and need reconsolidation. Prediction error (PE) has been recognized as a necessary boundary condition for memory destabilization. Moreover, memory strength is also widely accepted as an essential boundary condition to destabilize fear memory. This study investigated whether different strengths of conditioned fear memories require different degrees of PE during memory reactivation in order for the memories to become destabilized. Here, we assessed the fear-potentiated startle and skin conductance response, using the post-retrieval extinction procedure. A violation of expectancy (PE) was induced during retrieval to reactivate enhanced (unpredictable-shock) or ordinary (predictable-shock) fear memories that were established the day before. Results showed that a PE retrieval before extinction can prevent the return of predictable-shock fear memory but cannot prevent the return of unpredictable-shock fear memory, indicating that a single PE is insufficient to destabilize enhanced fear memory. Therefore, we further investigated whether increasing the degree of PE could destabilize enhanced fear memory using different retrieval strategies (multiple PE retrieval and unreinforced CS retrieval). We found that spontaneous recovery of enhanced fear memory was prevented in both retrieval strategies, but reinstatement was only prevented in the multiple PE retrieval group, suggesting that a larger amount of PE is needed to destabilize enhanced fear memory. The findings suggest that behavioral updating during destabilization requires PE, and the degree of PE needed to induce memory destabilization during memory retrieval depends on the strength of fear memory. The study indicates that memory reconsolidation inference can be used to destabilize stronger memories, and the findings shed lights on the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorders and anxiety disorders.

Investigating the efficacy of the reminder-extinction procedure to disrupt contextual threat memories in humans using immersive Virtual Reality

Upon reactivation, consolidated memories can enter a temporary labile state and require restabilisation, known as reconsolidation. Interventions during this reconsolidation period can disrupt the reactivated memory. However, it is unclear whether different kinds of memory that depend on distinct brain regions all undergo reconsolidation. Evidence for reconsolidation originates from studies assessing amygdala-dependent memories using cue-conditioning paradigms in rodents, which were subsequently replicated in humans. Whilst studies providing evidence for reconsolidation of hippocampus-dependent memories in rodents have predominantly used context conditioning paradigms, studies in humans have used completely different paradigms such as tests for wordlists or stories. Here our objective was to bridge this paradigm gap between rodent and human studies probing reconsolidation of hippocampus-dependent memories. We modified a recently developed immersive Virtual Reality paradigm to test in humans whether contextual threat-conditioned memories can be disrupted by a reminder-extinction procedure that putatively targets reconsolidation. In contrast to our hypothesis, we found comparable recovery of contextual conditioned threat responses, and comparable retention of subjective measures of threat memory, episodic memory and exploration behaviour between the reminder-extinction and standard extinction groups. Our result provide no evidence that a reminder before extinction can prevent the return of context conditioned threat memories in humans.

Boundary conditions of post-retrieval extinction: A direct comparison of low and high partial reinforcement

Research has shown that a single presentation of the conditioned stimulus prior to extinction training can diminish conditioned responses. However, replication has proven difficult and appears to be limited by boundary conditions. Here we tested the boundary condition of memory strength by comparing the effect of reinforcement rate to assess its role in post-retrieval extinction. Eighty university students had undergone a three-day fear conditioning experiment in which two partial reinforcement schedules (40%, 80%) were applied. The findings indicated that both low and high partial reinforcement groups did not demonstrate recovery of conditioned responses after post-retrieval extinction. In contrast, both groups demonstrated significant recovery to standard extinction with significantly greater recovery in the 80% group relative to the 40% group. Additionally, we found that greater physiological arousal during memory retrieval significantly predicted recovery of fear at test phase. We conclude that when compared to a lower partial reinforcement schedule, a higher partial reinforcement resulted in the formation of a stronger memory as indicated by greater physiological arousal during memory reactivation and recovery of conditioned responses after standard extinction, but that it does not function as a boundary condition of post-retrieval extinction. These data are significant because it is the first study to investigate the effect of varying partial reinforcement schedules on fear recovery and add to the body of literature that continue to identify sources of failure in the application of post-retrieval extinction.

No persistent attenuation of fear memories in humans: A registered replication of the reactivation-extinction effect

It has been proposed that memory retrieval can destabilize consolidated memories, after which they need to be reconsolidated in order to be retained. The presentation of relevant information during memory reconsolidation could then result in the modification of a destabilized memory trace, by allowing the memory trace to be updated before being reconsolidated. In line with this idea, Schiller et al. (2010) have demonstrated that memory retrieval shortly before extinction training can prevent the later recovery of conditioned fear responding that is observed after regular extinction training. Those findings have been the subject of considerable controversy, due in part to theoretical reasons but also due to a number of failures to obtain similar results in conceptual replication attempts. Here, we report the results of a highly powered, direct, independent replication of the critical conditions of Schiller et al. (2010, Experiment 1). Due to misrepresentation of the exclusion criteria in the original Schiller et al. (2010) report, data collection was considerably delayed. When we eventually managed to attain our pre-registered sample size, we found that we could not observe any benefit of reactivation-extinction over regular extinction training in preventing recovery of conditioned fear. The results of the present study, along with the mixed findings in the literature and the misreporting in Schiller et al. (2010), give cause to question whether there is robust evidence that reactivation-extinction prevents the return of fear in humans.

Effect of d-cycloserine on fear extinction training in adults with social anxiety disorder

Preclinical and clinical data have shown that D-cycloserine (DCS), a partial agonist at the N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor complex, augments the retention of fear extinction in animals and the therapeutic learning from exposure therapy in humans. However, studies with non-clinical human samples in de novo fear conditioning paradigms have demonstrated minimal to no benefit of DCS. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of DCS on the retention of extinction learning following de novo fear conditioning in a clinical sample. Eighty-one patients with social anxiety disorder were recruited and underwent a previously validated de novo fear conditioning and extinction paradigm over the course of three days. Of those, only 43 (53%) provided analyzable data. During conditioning on Day 1, participants viewed images of differently colored lamps, two of which were followed by with electric shock (CS+) and a third which was not (CS-). On Day 2, participants were randomly assigned to receive either 50 mg DCS or placebo, administered in a double-blind manner 1 hour prior to extinction training with a single CS+ in a distinct context. Day 3 consisted of tests of extinction recall and renewal. The primary outcome was skin conductance response to conditioned stimuli, and shock expectancy ratings were examined as a secondary outcome. Results showed greater skin conductance and expectancy ratings in response to the CS+ compared to CS- at the end of conditioning. As expected, this difference was no longer present at the end of extinction training, but returned at early recall and renewal phases on Day 3, showing evidence of return of fear. In contrast to hypotheses, DCS had no moderating influence on skin conductance response or expectancy of shock during recall or renewal phases. We did not find evidence of an effect of DCS on the retention of extinction learning in humans in this fear conditioning and extinction paradigm.

Counterconditioning following memory retrieval diminishes the reinstatement of appetitive memories in humans

Appetitive memories play a crucial role in learning and behavior, but under certain circumstances, such memories become maladaptive and play a vital role in addiction and other psychopathologies. Recent scientific research has demonstrated that memories can be modified following their reactivation through memory retrieval in a process termed memory reconsolidation. Several nonpharmacological behavioral manipulations yielded mixed results in their capacity to alter maladaptive memories in humans. Here, we aimed to translate the promising findings observed in rodents to humans. We constructed a novel three-day procedure using aversive counterconditioning to alter appetitive memories after short memory retrieval. On the first day, we used appetitive conditioning to form appetitive memories. On the second day, we retrieved these appetitive memories in one group (Retrieval group) but not in a second group. Subsequently, all participants underwent counterconditioning. On the third day, we attempted to reinstate the appetitive memories from day one. We observed a significant reduction in the reinstatement of the original appetitive memory when counterconditioning was induced following memory retrieval. Here, we provide a novel human paradigm that models several memory processes and demonstrate memory attenuation when counterconditioned after its retrieval. This paradigm can be used to study complex appetitive memory dynamics, e.g., memory reconsolidation and its underlying brain mechanisms.

A review of boundary conditions and variables involved in the prevention of return of fear after post-retrieval extinction

Experimental evidence suggests that the return of fear may be prevented by post-retrieval extinction (PRE), a procedure consisting of extinction training after the presentation of a retrieval cue. However, attempts to replicate these findings have yielded mixed results, with some studies showing diminished fear responses after PRE, whereas others show no effect on the return of fear following this procedure. The discrepancies across studies have been interpreted as evidence that there might be conditions under which PRE is not effective (boundary conditions), but these variables have yet to be fully described. We aimed to provide an overview of PRE in humans. We briefly present the theory and research that originated post-retrieval procedures with a focus on the experimental setup used in human studies. We continue with a compilation of possible experimental boundary conditions along with some questions for future research.