The standard reconsolidation protocol for auditory fear-conditioning does not account for fear to the test context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on memory reconsolidation has relied heavily on the use of Pavlovian auditory cued-fear conditioning. Here, an auditory cue (CS) is paired with a footshock (US) and the CS is later able to evoke a freezing response when presented alone. Some treatments, when administered to conditioned subjects immediately following a CS-alone (memory reactivation) trial, can attenuate the freezing they display on subsequent CS-alone (test) trials, in the absence of the treatment. This reduction in conditioned freezing is usually taken as evidence that the treatment disrupts post-reactivation reconsolidation of the memory trace representing the pairing of CS and US. We suggest an alternative interpretation that may account, either in whole or in part, for the attenuated freezing. The standard reconsolidation protocol (SRP) for auditory fear-conditioning has a design feature that results in second-order conditioning of fear to the test context, as this context is paired with the fear-evoking CS on the reactivation trial. Since freezing during the CS on the test will reflect the compound influence of contextual-fear and cued-fear, a post-reactivation treatment might attenuate freezing on the test by disrupting consolidation of second-order contextual-fear conditioning, even if it has little or no effect on the stability of the original cued-fear memory. This experiment confirmed that rats tested according to the SRP, in which the reactivation and test trials occur in the same context, freeze more on the test trial than rats that receive the reactivation and test trials in different contexts. This confound could lead to false-positive evidence of disrupted reconsolidation if it is not avoided or minimized, which can be accomplished with a modified protocol.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".