ReviewFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2026
A systematic review of spontaneous recovery in human fear conditioning.
Review in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spontaneous recovery is regarded as an experimental analogue of relapse following successful treatment of anxiety and traumatic disorders using exposure therapy. This systematic review examines the evidence for spontaneous recovery within human fear conditioning, highlighting its broad application in research and implications of findings for potential clinical implications. PubMed, Medline, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 09/04/2026. In total, the search yielded 4,655 articles, of which 242 were included in the review. A meta-analysis was not conducted and the review was not preregistered. Evidence suggests differences in spontaneous recovery exist between clinical populations and healthy control groups, particularly for posttraumatic stress disorder, with mixed evidence observed in anxious versus healthy individuals. Our review reveals that paradigms involving a ~ 24-h delay between extinction and spontaneous recovery test (typically conducted across two consecutive days) are most frequently used and might produce the strongest effects. Importantly, we identify converging patterns between experimental findings and clinical outcomes between spontaneous recovery and the real-world efficacy of pharmacological interventions, providing preliminary support for the translational relevance of the paradigm. However, we note the slow uptake of non-pharmacological interventions in clinical trials despite promising experimental data and discuss findings from neurotransmitter and sleep studies that offer insights for optimizing exposure therapy. These findings suggest future research directions, including evaluating the correlation between experimental and clinical outcomes, exploring optimal conditions for the observation of spontaneous recovery, and understanding the effects of brain stimulation on fear conditioning.
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.