Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35393469›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Better, worse, or different than expected: on the role of value and identity prediction errors in fear memory reactivation.

A M V Gerlicher, S A Verweij, M Kindt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

A M V GerlicherDepartment of Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129B, 1018WS, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. a.m.v.gerlicher@uva.nl.
S A VerweijDepartment of Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129B, 1018WS, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M KindtDepartment of Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129B, 1018WS, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

European Research Council 743163
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although reconsolidation-based interventions constitute a promising new avenue to treating fear and anxieties disorders, the success of the intervention is not guaranteed. The initiation of memory reconsolidation is dependent on whether a mismatch between the experienced and predicted outcome-a prediction error (PE)-occurs during fear memory reactivation. It remains, however, elusive whether any type of PE renders fear memories susceptible to reconsolidation disruption. Here, we investigated whether a value PE, elicited by an outcome that is better or worse than expected, is necessary to make fear memories susceptible to reconsolidation disruption or whether a model-based identity PE, i.e., a PE elicited by an outcome equally aversive but different than expected, would be sufficient. Blocking beta-adrenergic receptors with propranolol HCl after reactivation did, however, not reduce the expression of fear after either type of PE. Instead, we observed intact fear memory expression 24 h after reactivation in the value-, identity- and a no-PE control group. The present results do not corroborate our earlier findings of reconsolidation disruption and point towards challenges that the field is currently facing in observing evidence for memory reconsolidation at all. We provide potential explanations for the unexpected failure of replicating reconsolidation disruption and discuss future directions.

Indexed as

FearMemoryPropranololReceptors, Adrenergic, betaPropranololReceptors, Adrenergic, beta

Identifiers

PMID35393469
PMCPMC8988102

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.