Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25128533›Full record

ReviewLearning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.)2014

A review on human reinstatement studies: an overview and methodological challenges.

Jan Haaker, Armita Golkar, Dirk Hermans, Tina B Lonsdorf

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Effects of intranasal insulin as an enhancer of fear extinction: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled experimental study.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2020
    Trial
  4. Augmenting extinction learning with D-cycloserine reduces return of fear: a randomized, placebo-controlled fMRI study.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2020
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Understanding Human Fear Extinction: Insights from Psychophysiology.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2023
    Article
  17. Hippocampus and amygdala fear memory engrams re-emerge after contextual fear relapse.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jan HaakerInstitute for Systems Neuroscience, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany Karolinska Institute, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
Armita GolkarKarolinska Institute, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
Dirk HermansFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Tina B LonsdorfInstitute for Systems Neuroscience, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany t.lonsdorf@uke.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In human research, studies of return of fear (ROF) phenomena, and reinstatement in particular, began only a decade ago and recently are more widely used, e.g., as outcome measures for fear/extinction memory manipulations (e.g., reconsolidation). As reinstatement research in humans is still in its infancy, providing an overview of its stability and boundary conditions and summarizing methodological challenges is timely to foster fruitful future research. As a translational endeavor, clarifying the circumstances under which (experimental) reinstatement occurs may offer a first step toward understanding relapse as a clinical phenomenon and pave the way for the development of new pharmacological or behavioral ways to prevent ROF. The current state of research does not yet allow pinpointing these circumstances in detail and we hope this review will aid the research field to advance in this direction. As an introduction, we begin with a synopsis of rodent work on reinstatement and theories that have been proposed to explain the findings. The review however mainly focuses on reinstatement in humans. We first describe details and variations of the experimental setup in reinstatement studies in humans and give a general overview of results. We continue with a compilation of possible experimental boundary conditions and end with the role of individual differences and behavioral and/or pharmacological manipulations. Furthermore, we compile important methodological and design details on the published studies in humans and end with open research questions and some important methodological and design recommendations as a guide for future research.

Indexed as

Extinction, PsychologicalConditioning, ClassicalFearHumansMental RecallTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID25128533
PMCPMC4138360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.