Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28469565›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2017

In Search for Boundary Conditions of Reconsolidation: A Failure of Fear Memory Interference.

Natalie Schroyens, Tom Beckers, Merel Kindt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Modulation of methamphetamine memory reconsolidation by neural projection from basolateral amygdala to nucleus accumbens.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2023
    Article
  11. The elegant complexity of fear in non-human animals.Emerging topics in life sciences · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

3 authors.

Natalie SchroyensDepartment of Psychology, KU LeuvenLeuven, Belgium.
Tom BeckersDepartment of Psychology, KU LeuvenLeuven, Belgium.
Merel KindtDepartment of Clinical Psychology, University of AmsterdamAmsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

European Research Council 648176
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The presentation of a fear memory cue can result in mere memory retrieval, destabilization of the reactivated memory trace, or the formation of an extinction memory. The interaction between the degree of novelty during reactivation and previous learning conditions is thought to determine the outcome of a reactivation session. This study aimed to evaluate whether contextual novelty can prevent cue-induced destabilization and disruption of a fear memory acquired by non-asymptotic learning. To this end, fear memory was reactivated in a novel context or in the original context of learning, and fear memory reactivation was followed by the administration of propranolol, an amnestic drug. Remarkably, fear memory was not impaired by post-reactivation propranolol administration or extinction training under the usual conditions used in our lab, irrespective of the reactivation context. These unexpected findings are discussed in the light of our current experimental parameters and alleged boundary conditions on memory destabilization.

Indexed as

boundary conditionscontextual noveltydestabilizationfear memoryreconsolidation

Identifiers

PMID28469565
PMCPMC5395559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.