ArticleFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2024
Auditory stimuli suppress contextual fear responses in safety learning independent of a possible safety meaning.
Article in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Safety learning allows the identification of non-threatening situations, a learning process instrumental for survival and psychic health. In contrast to fear learning, in which a sensory cue (conditioned stimulus, CS) is temporally linked to a mildly aversive stimulus (US), safety learning is studied by presenting the CS and US in an explicitly unpaired fashion. This leads to conditioned inhibition of fear responses, in which sensory cues can acquire a safety meaning (CS-). In one variant of safety learning, an auditory CS- was shown to reduce contextual fear responses during recall, as measured by freezing of mice. Here, we performed control experiments to test whether auditory stimuli might interfere with freezing by mechanisms other than safety learning, a phenomenon also called external inhibition. Surprisingly, when auditory stimulation was omitted during training (US-only controls), such stimuli still significantly suppressed contextual freezing during recall, indistinguishable from the reduction of freezing after regular safety training. The degree of this external inhibition was positively correlated with the levels of contextual freezing preceding the auditory stimulation. Correspondingly, in fear learning protocols which employ a new context during recall and therefore induce lower contextual freezing, auditory stimuli did not induce significant external inhibition. These experiments show that in safety learning protocols that employ contextual freezing, the freezing reduction caused by auditory stimuli during recall is dominated by external inhibition, rather than by learned safety. Thus, in safety learning experiments extensive controls should be performed to rule out possible intrinsic effects of sensory cues on freezing behavior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.