A Signature of Passivity? An Explorative Study of the N3 Event- Related Potential Component in Passive Oddball Tasks

Fear memory in humans is consolidated over time independently of sleep

Fear memories can be altered after acquisition by processes, such as fear memory consolidation or fear extinction, even without further exposure to the fear-eliciting stimuli, but factors contributing to these processes are not well understood. Sleep is known to consolidate, strengthen, and change newly acquired declarative and procedural memories. However, evidence on the role of time and sleep in the consolidation of fear memories is inconclusive. We used highly sensitive electrophysiological measures to examine the development of fear-conditioned responses over time and sleep in humans. We assessed event-related brain potentials (ERP) in 18 healthy, young individuals during fear conditioning before and after a 2-hour afternoon nap or a corresponding wake interval in a counterbalanced within-subject design. The procedure involved pairing a neutral tone (CS+) with a highly unpleasant sound. As a control, another neutral tone (CS-) was paired with a neutral sound. Fear responses were examined before the interval during a habituation phase and an acquisition phase as well as after the interval during an extinction phase and a reacquisition phase. Differential fear conditioning during acquisition was evidenced by a more negative slow ERP component (stimulus-preceding negativity) developing before the unconditioned stimulus (loud noise). This differential fear response was even stronger after the interval during reacquisition compared with initial acquisition, but this effect was similarly pronounced after sleep and wakefulness. These findings suggest that fear memories are consolidated over time, with this effect being independent of intervening sleep.

Action Intention-based and Stimulus Regularity-based Predictions: Same or Different?

We act on the environment to produce desired effects, but we also adapt to the environmental demands by learning what to expect next, based on experience: How do action-based predictions and sensory predictions relate to each other? We explore this by implementing a self-generation oddball paradigm, where participants performed random sequences of left and right button presses to produce frequent standard and rare deviant tones. By manipulating the action–tone association as well as the likelihood of a button press over the other one, we compare ERP effects evoked by the intention to produce a specific tone, tone regularity, and both intention and regularity. We show that the N1b and Tb components of the N1 response are modulated by violations of tone regularity only. However, violations of action intention as well as of regularity elicit MMN responses, which occur similarly in all three conditions. Regardless of whether the predictions at sensory levels were based on either intention, regularity, or both, the tone deviance was further and equally well detected at hierarchically higher processing level, as reflected in similar P3a effects between conditions. We did not observe additive prediction errors when intention and regularity were violated concurrently, suggesting the two integrate despite presumably having independent generators. Even though they are often discussed as individual prediction sources in the literature, this study represents to our knowledge the first to directly compare them. Finally, these results show how, in the context of action, our brain can easily switch between top–down intention-based expectations and bottom–up regularity cues to efficiently predict future events.