Evidence for the persistence of contextual fear memories following immediate extinction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence suggests that extinction, the suppression of a learned response to a Pavlovian signal that is produced by exposure to the signal alone after conditioning, is a consequence of new inhibitory learning. However, it has been proposed that extinction given immediately after conditioning reflects memory 'erasure'. Using contextual fear conditioning, we examine the nature of extinction further using a novel behavioral paradigm that probes for the absence or presence of a memory. Rats received a context paired with one of three different shock intensities (0.8, 1.2 or 1.6 mA) and then received extinction either immediately (15 min) or after a delay (24 h). Spontaneous recovery was roughly equivalent in the immediate and delayed extinction groups when they were tested at 24 h after extinction. To further test the status of the original memory trace, we exploited the effect that only the first, but not second, learning of contextual fear requires N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors (NMDArs) in the dorsal hippocampus [M.J. Sanders & M.S. Fanselow (2003) Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 80,123-129]. Here we use this property of second learning to determine if memory of an immediately extinguished fear also persists. Rats received bilateral infusions of the NMDAr antagonist DL-2-amino-5-phosphonopentanoic acid into the dorsal hippocampus prior to training in a novel second context. Memory for the second learning is not affected by NMDAr blockade in either group, suggesting that the extinguished memory is not erased but inhibited. Overall, the results provide little evidence that extinction conducted immediately after conditioning destroys or erases the original memory trace.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".