Interfering with emotional processing resources upon associative threat memory reactivation does not affect memory retention (Reactivation + EWMT Group)

Access Data

Abstract

Ample evidence suggests that memories enter a labile state upon retrieval, requiring reconsolidation processes in order to be retained. During this period of instability, various interventions can be applied to modify problematic memories. A novel behavioral intervention was designed, aimed at disrupting amygdala-based cognitive processing following the retrieval of a conditioned threat memory, in order to prevent its reconsolidation. We fear-conditioned participants on day 1, and reactivated their memory on day 2. Following reactivation, the reactivation plus emotional working memory task (R + EWMT) group completed an EWMT, while the reactivation only (RO) group served as a no-task control. On day 3, all participants were tested for memory retention, followed by a test for sensitivity to reinstatement. We observed successful acquisition and reactivation in fear-potentiated startle responding, skin conductance responding and US expectancies in both groups. Differential fear responding was fully preserved in the R + EWMT group relative to the RO group at the beginning of retention testing, and both groups were comparably sensitive to reinstatement. Thus, we failed to obtain any evidence that the execution of an EWMT after threat memory reactivation impairs reconsolidation. Further research is indicated to clarify whether threat memory reconsolidation can be disrupted by taxing relevant WM resources.

ID 203

Authors

Anastasia Chalkia, Centre for the Psychology of Learning and experimental Psychopathology, Department of Psychology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Leuven Brain institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Lauranne Vanaken, Centre for the Psychology of Learning and experimental Psychopathology, Department of Psychology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Tom Beckers, Centre for the Psychology of Learning and experimental Psychopathology, Department of Psychology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Leuven Brain institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Year

2019

DOI of Publication

10.1038/s41598-019-40827-9

Persistent Identifier to Dataset

10.17605/OSF.IO/4VSR3

Where was the data collected?

KU Leuven, Belgium

How to Cite

Chalkia, A., Vanaken, L., Fonteyne, R., & Beckers, T. (2019). Interfering with emotional processing resources upon associative threat memory reactivation does not affect memory retention. Scientific reports, 9(1), 4175. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40827-9

Participant Information

Participant Age

Participant Sex

Experimental Group

Reactivation + EWMT (R + EWMT): - completion of Emotional Working Memory Task (EWMT) after reactivation (1 CS+, 1 NA) Reactivation Only (RO): - 25 minute of waiting in experimental cubicle after reactivation (1 CS+, 1 NA)

Stimuli

Drug Administration

No

Conditioning Protocol

Differential

Instructions CS-US Contingencies

Different instructions in different phases

Number of Different US

1

US Modality

electrotactile

Number of Different CS+

1

CS+ 1: Reinforcement Rate (%)

75

CS+ 2: Reinforcement Rate (%)

CS+ 3: Reinforcement Rate (%)

Number of Different CS-

1

CS Modality

visual

Data Collected During MRI

No

Physiological Measures

measured trialwise & untransformed

Skin Conductance Response

Yes Yes

Skin Conductance Level

No No

Pupil Size

No No

Fear Potentiated Startle/Startle EMG

Yes Yes

Heart Rate

No No

Ratings

US Expectancy

Yes

US Intensity Rating

Yes

CS Valence

Yes

CS Arousal

Yes

CS Fear

No

CS Stress

No

CS Anxiety

No

Contingency Awareness

No

Questionnaires

Fear of Spiders Questionnaire (FSQ)

Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI)

State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S)

State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-T)