Reconsolidation of Amygdala-Based Fear Memories:
A Newly Discovered Mechanism and its Implications
for Exposure
Stefan G. Hofmann, Ph.D.
Michael W. Otto, Ph.D.
Elizabeth A. Phelps, Ph.D.
Bradford C. Richards, Ph.D.
 Bradford
C. Richards, Ph.D., ABPP
• Director and Supervising Psychologist,
Cognitive Behavioral Institute of Albuquerque
• Editor, IACP journal Cognitive Behavioral
Therapy Book Reviews
• Former faculty member, Seton Hall University
• Taught courses in Cognitive Science,
Behavioral Learning Theory
• Research interests: Cognition and Emotion
 Elizabeth
A. Phelps, Ph.D.
• Laboratory Director, Phelps Lab, NYU
• Professor of Psychology and Neural Science;
Associate, Center for Neural Science, NYU
• Fellow, American Academy of Arts and
Sciences
• Former Editor, APA journal Emotion
• Research interests: Cognitive neuroscience of
emotion, learning and memory
 Michael
W. Otto, Ph.D.
• Professor of Psychology, Boston University
• Director, Translational Research Program,
Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders
• Past President, ABCT
• Over 320 articles, chapters, and books on
CBT and translational research
• Fellow, American Psychological Association
• Scientific Advisory Board, Anxiety Disorders
Association of America
 Stefan
G. Hofmann, Ph.D.
• Professor of Psychology, Boston University
• Director, Social Anxiety Program, Center for
Anxiety and Related Disorders
• Editor-in-Chief, Cognitive Therapy and
Research
• Associate Editor, Journal of Clinical and
Consulting Psychology
• President-Elect, ABCT
• President, International Association for
Cognitive Psychotherapy
Images and animation by Greg J. Siegle, Ph.D., Program in Cognitive Affective Neuroscience, U. Pittsburgh
 Review
principles and mechanisms of
classical conditioning and extinction
 Review
principles and mechanisms of
classical conditioning and extinction
 Introduce a newly discovered
mechanism: reconsolidation of fear
memories in the amygdala
 Review
principles and mechanisms of
classical conditioning and extinction
 Introduce a newly discovered
mechanism: reconsolidation of fear
memories in the amygdala
 Present evidence that it works in
animals and humans without drugs
 Review
principles and mechanisms of
classical conditioning and extinction
 Introduce a newly discovered
mechanism: reconsolidation of fear
memories in the amygdala
 Present evidence that it works in
animals and humans without drugs
 Present evidence that it works using
propranolol in chronic PTSD patients
 NS
→ UCS
 NS
→ UCS
 CS → CR
 NS
→ UCS
 CS → CR
 After
being encoded, the CS → CR
memory is solidified in long term
memory through a set of automatic
neural processes collectively known as
memory “consolidation”
 Repeatedly
present CS without UCS
 Repeatedly
present CS without UCS
 CR eventually diminishes
 Repeatedly
present CS without UCS
 CR eventually diminishes
• But the CR does not disappear forever
 Repeatedly
present CS without UCS
 CR eventually diminishes
• But the CR does not disappear forever
• CR reappears – spontaneous recovery
 Repeatedly
present CS without UCS
 CR eventually diminishes
• But the CR does not disappear forever
• CR reappears – spontaneous recovery
• CR reappears – renewal of learning context
 Repeatedly
present CS without UCS
 CR eventually diminishes
• But the CR does not disappear forever
• CR reappears – spontaneous recovery
• CR reappears – renewal of learning context
• CR reappears – reinstatement of UCS
 Repeatedly
present CS without UCS
 CR eventually diminishes
• But the CR does not disappear forever
• CR reappears – spontaneous recovery
• CR reappears – renewal of learning context
• CR reappears – reinstatement of UCS
• CR reappears – faster relearning of CS
 Repeatedly
present CS without UCS
 CR eventually diminishes
• But the CR does not disappear forever
• CR reappears – spontaneous recovery
• CR reappears – renewal of learning context
• CR reappears – reinstatement of UCS
• CR reappears – faster relearning of CS
 Memory
of CS → UCS never goes away
 New
memories are added
 New
memories are added
• New memories (of CS → ∅) compete with the
old ones (of CS → UCS) for activation and
behavioral expression
 New
memories are added
• New memories (of CS → ∅) compete with the
old ones (of CS → UCS) for activation and
behavioral expression
• Often termed “inhibitory learning”
 New
memories are added
• New memories (of CS → ∅) compete with the
old ones (of CS → UCS) for activation and
behavioral expression
• Often termed “inhibitory learning”
 Craske et al. (2008) BRAT paper – great review
 New
memories are added
• New memories (of CS → ∅) compete with the
old ones (of CS → UCS) for activation and
behavioral expression
• Often termed “inhibitory learning”
 Craske et al. (2008) BRAT paper – great review
 Pharmacological
Augmentation
 New
memories are added
• New memories (of CS → ∅) compete with the
old ones (of CS → UCS) for activation and
behavioral expression
• Often termed “inhibitory learning”
 Craske et al. (2008) BRAT paper – great review
 Pharmacological
Augmentation
• D-Cycloserine, NMDA glutamate agonist
 New
memories are added
• New memories (of CS → ∅) compete with the
old ones (of CS → UCS) for activation and
behavioral expression
• Often termed “inhibitory learning”
 Craske et al. (2008) BRAT paper – great review
 Pharmacological
Augmentation
• D-Cycloserine, NMDA glutamate agonist
 Infused into rat amygdalas, or given systemically
 New
memories are added
• New memories (of CS → ∅) compete with the
old ones (of CS → UCS) for activation and
behavioral expression
• Often termed “inhibitory learning”
 Craske et al. (2008) BRAT paper – great review
 Pharmacological
Augmentation
• D-Cycloserine, NMDA glutamate agonist
 Pharmacological
Augmentation
• D-Cycloserine, NMDA glutamate agonist
 Infused into rat amygdalas, or given systemically
 Pharmacological
Augmentation
• D-Cycloserine, NMDA glutamate agonist
 Infused into rat amygdalas, or given systemically
 Hofmann, Pollack, & Otto (2006) found efficacy in
Social Anxiety exposures
 Pharmacological
Augmentation
• D-Cycloserine, NMDA glutamate agonist
 Infused into rat amygdalas, or given systemically
 Hofmann, Pollack, & Otto (2006) found efficacy in
Social Anxiety exposures
 Otto et al. (2010) found efficacy in Panic Disorder
when DCS was given during later sessions that
included Interoceptive Exposure
 Clear jar is held up
 A fear memory (chocolate covered almond) is
dropped into jar
 Extinction adds safety memories (yogurt covered
almonds are added to jar)
 Retrieval is similar to sampling from the pool of
memories (jar is shaken)
 Extinction with D-cycloserine adds even more
safety memories (more yogurt covered almonds
are added to jar)
 Original
memories remain unaltered
 Original
memories remain unaltered
 New memories are added in exposure
 Original
memories remain unaltered
 New memories are added in exposure
 Old memories can always resurface
 Original
memories remain unaltered
 New memories are added in exposure
 Old memories can always resurface
 This
was the best we could hope for
 Original
memories remain unaltered
 New memories are added in exposure
 Old memories can always resurface
 This
was the best we could hope for
 Then
a new mechanism was seen…
 Center
for Neural Science, NYU, 1999
 Center
for Neural Science, NYU, 1999
• Studying protein synthesis in the formation of
fear memories in the amygdala
 Center
for Neural Science, NYU, 1999
• Studying protein synthesis in the formation of
fear memories in the amygdala – blocking
protein synthesis prevents consolidation
 Center
for Neural Science, NYU, 1999
• Studying protein synthesis in the formation of
fear memories in the amygdala – blocking
protein synthesis prevents consolidation
• Nader hypothesized that blocking protein
synthesis during memory retrieval would
prevent the re-storage of the fear memory
 Center
for Neural Science, NYU, 1999
• Studying protein synthesis in the formation of
fear memories in the amygdala – blocking
protein synthesis prevents consolidation
• Nader hypothesized that blocking protein
synthesis during memory retrieval would
prevent the re-storage of the fear memory
• Nader predicted subsequent amnesia for the
fear component of the memory
 Center
for Neural Science, NYU, 1999
• Studying protein synthesis in the formation of
fear memories in the amygdala – blocking
protein synthesis prevents consolidation
• Nader hypothesized that blocking protein
synthesis during memory retrieval would
prevent the re-storage of the fear memory
• Nader predicted subsequent amnesia for the
fear component of the memory
• LeDoux bet a bottle of tequila against it
 Center
for Neural Science, NYU, 1999
• Studying protein synthesis in the formation of
fear memories in the amygdala – blocking
protein synthesis prevents consolidation
• Nader hypothesized that blocking protein
synthesis during memory retrieval would
prevent the re-storage of the fear memory
• Nader predicted subsequent amnesia for the
fear component of the memory
• LeDoux bet a bottle of tequila against it
• Nader won
 Nader,
Schafe, & LeDoux reported:
• The protein synthesis inhibitor anisomycin,
infused directly into the LBA of rats after
reactivation of a fear memory, prevented
subsequent reconsolidation of the fear
memory and produced amnesia for the fear
 Nader,
Schafe, & LeDoux reported:
• The protein synthesis inhibitor anisomycin,
infused directly into the LBA of rats after
reactivation of a fear memory, prevented
subsequent reconsolidation of the fear
memory and produced amnesia for the fear
• Delaying the infusion for six hours after the
presentation of the reminder cue did not
produce amnesia for the fear memory
 Nader,
Schafe, & LeDoux theorized:
• Consolidated fear memories, when
reactivated during retrieval, return to a labile
state
 Nader,
Schafe, & LeDoux theorized:
• Consolidated fear memories, when
reactivated during retrieval, return to a labile
state
• Once rendered labile by retrieval, these fear
memories must undergo reconsolidation in
order to persist
 Nader,
Schafe, & LeDoux theorized:
• Consolidated fear memories, when
reactivated during retrieval, return to a labile
state
• Once rendered labile by retrieval, these fear
memories must undergo reconsolidation in
order to persist
• Reconsolidation has a limited temporal
window during which the memory is labile
and subject to disruption
 Debiec
& LeDoux reported:
• Β-Adrenaline blockade (propronalol) disrupts
reconsolidation, but not initial 24 hours of
consolidation, of fear memory in rats
 Debiec
& LeDoux reported:
• Β-Adrenaline blockade (propronalol) disrupts
reconsolidation, but not initial 24 hours of
consolidation, of fear memory in rats
• This effect was shown with both direct LBA
infusion and with systemic administration
 Debiec
& LeDoux reported:
• Β-Adrenaline blockade (propronalol) disrupts
reconsolidation, but not initial 24 hours of
consolidation, of fear memory in rats
• This effect was shown with both direct LBA
infusion and with systemic administration
• Direct infusion of propranolol 2mm dorsal to
the LBA had no effect
 Debiec
& LeDoux reported:
• Β-Adrenaline blockade (propronalol) disrupts
reconsolidation, but not initial 24 hours of
consolidation, of fear memory in rats
• This effect was shown with both direct LBA
infusion and with systemic administration
• Direct infusion of propranolol 2mm dorsal to
the LBA had no effect
• Speculation: might help after PTSD exposures
 Monfils,
Cowansage, Klann, & LeDoux
 Monfils,
Cowansage, Klann, & LeDoux
 “Extinction-Reconsolidation
Boundaries:
Key to persistent Attenuation of Fear
Memories”
 Monfils,
Cowansage, Klann, & LeDoux
 “Extinction-Reconsolidation
Boundaries:
Key to persistent Attenuation of Fear
Memories”
 Drug-free
reconsolidation paradigm
 Monfils,
Cowansage, Klann, & LeDoux
 “Extinction-Reconsolidation
Boundaries:
Key to persistent Attenuation of Fear
Memories”
 Drug-free
reconsolidation paradigm
 Manipulated
trials in rats
only the timing of extinction
 Six
experiments, with each experiment
teaching rats a conditioned fear, followed
by different conditions of extinction and
different measurements of the return of
fear
 Six
experiments, with each experiment
teaching rats a conditioned fear, followed
by different conditions of extinction and
different measurements of the return of
fear
 Showed that reconsolidation can violate
the rules of:
 Six
experiments, with each experiment
teaching rats a conditioned fear, followed
by different conditions of extinction and
different measurements of the return of
fear
 Showed that reconsolidation can violate
the rules of:
• Spontaneous recovery
 Six
experiments, with each experiment
teaching rats a conditioned fear, followed
by different conditions of extinction and
different measurements of the return of
fear
 Showed that reconsolidation can violate
the rules of:
• Spontaneous recovery
• Context renewal
 Six
experiments, with each experiment
teaching rats a conditioned fear, followed
by different conditions of extinction and
different measurements of the return of
fear
 Showed that reconsolidation can violate
the rules of:
• Spontaneous recovery
• Context renewal
• UCS reinstatement
 Six
experiments, with each experiment
teaching rats a conditioned fear, followed
by different conditions of extinction and
different measurements of the return of
fear
 Showed that reconsolidation can violate
the rules of:
• Spontaneous recovery
• Context renewal
• UCS reinstatement
• Faster relearning
 Experiment
1: On day 1 all rats received
3 tone-shock pairings, with 24 hours to
consolidate the fear memory
 Experiment
1: On day 1 all rats received
3 tone-shock pairings, with 24 hours to
consolidate the fear memory
 On day 2, the time delay between
retrieval and extinction trials was varied
between groups: 0m, 10m, 1h, 6h, and
24h.
 Experiment
1: On day 1 all rats received
3 tone-shock pairings, with 24 hours to
consolidate the fear memory
 On day 2, the time delay between
retrieval and extinction trials was varied
between groups: 0m, 10m, 1h, 6h, and
24h.
 One month later, rats were tested for
spontaneous recovery of freezing in
response to the CS
 Rats
given 10m and 1h delays between
retrieval and extinction showed no
spontaneous recovery at one month,
whereas rats given delays of 0m, 6h, and
24h showed marked spontaneous
recovery at one month
 Rats
given 10m and 1h delays between
retrieval and extinction showed no
spontaneous recovery at one month,
whereas rats given delays of 0m, 6h, and
24h showed marked spontaneous
recovery at one month
 Interpretation: The window of lability for
memory reconsolidation is open at 10m
and 1 hour but closed by 6h. Outside of
that window, classical extinction occurs.
A
second experiment showed that
context renewal of the fear response did
not occur when extinction trials were
administered within the reconsolidation
window (1h), but did occur with classical
extinction (0m)
A
second experiment showed that
context renewal of the fear response did
not occur when extinction trials were
administered within the reconsolidation
window (1h), but did occur with classical
extinction (0m)
 A third experiment showed that the
classically extinguished (0m) CR returned
with reinstatement of 5 unsignalled
footshocks, but the reconsolidated (1h)
CS-CR memory was not reinstated by the
footshocks.

A fourth experiment investigated a neural
mechanism of memory destabilization
A fourth experiment investigated a neural
mechanism of memory destabilization
 Glutamate R1 receptors in the Lateral Amygdala
were found to be phosphorylated immediately
after the first memory retrieval (Western Blot,
Ser845)

A fourth experiment investigated a neural
mechanism of memory destabilization
 Glutamate R1 receptors in the Lateral Amygdala
were found to be phosphorylated immediately
after the first memory retrieval (Western Blot,
Ser845)
 These GluR1 receptors were found to be dephosphorylated immediately after the second
memory retrieval, but only if the second retrieval
occurred 1 hour later. If the second retrieval
occurred only 3 minutes later, GluR1 remained
phosphorylated. Without a 2nd retrieval, GluR1
remained phosphorylated for more than 1hour

A
fifth experiment showed that extinction
trials within the reconsolidation window
(1h) led to slower relearning of the fear
contingency than did classical extinction
(0m)
A
fifth experiment showed that extinction
trials within the reconsolidation window
(1h) led to slower relearning of the fear
contingency than did classical extinction
(0m)
 The sixth experiment showed that
extinction trials within the
reconsolidation window (1h) led to slower
relearning of the fear contingency than
naïve rats
 The
authors theorized: “The initial
valence conferred by the first
conditioning session no longer seems to
exist in its original fear-inducing form.”
 The
authors theorized: “The initial
valence conferred by the first
conditioning session no longer seems to
exist in its original fear-inducing form.”
 “…an adaptive purpose of
reconsolidation is to incorporate new
information at the time of retrieval, and
to update a memory – in the present case
leading to a destabilization of the initial
trace in the lateral amygdala, and the
reencoding of the once fear-inducing CS
as safe.”
 Clear jar is populated with many yogurt covered
almonds and one chocolate covered almond
 The authors are asserting that the mechanism
they manipulated is very different from simply
adding more safety memories
 The authors assert that they have accomplished
this: (chocolate covered almond is removed from
jar and replaced by a yogurt covered almond)
 They are not asserting that a retrieval process has
changed
 They are asserting that they have changed the
valence of the memory itself
 The
authors noted that it would be
important to understand the
“retardation of reacquisition induced
by our behavioral procedure because it
could, in principle, result in
maladaptive behavior in some cases.”
 The
authors noted that it would be
important to understand the
“retardation of reacquisition induced
by our behavioral procedure because it
could, in principle, result in
maladaptive behavior in some cases.”
 At CBIA, we considered and discussed
some possible misapplications and
their ethical implications
 APA
Ethical Standard 3.04 requires
psychologists to avoid harm
 APA
Ethical Standard 3.04 requires
psychologists to avoid harm
 It is the responsibility of the individual
psychologist to determine whether the
“retardaton of reacquisition” of a fear
response could be harmful
 APA
Ethical Standard 3.04 requires
psychologists to avoid harm
 It is the responsibility of the individual
psychologist to determine whether the
“retardaton of reacquisition” of a fear
response could be harmful
 This could be especially difficult if the
transformation of a fear memory into a
safety memory generalizes to other
memories
 Overall,
this paper showed how to
overcome all four limitations of
classical extinction: Spontaneous
recovery, context renewal,
reinstatement, and rapid relearning
 Overall,
this paper showed how to
overcome all four limitations of
classical extinction: Spontaneous
recovery, context renewal,
reinstatement, and rapid relearning
 These violations of the century-old
principles of classical extinction were
accomplished very simply: by inserting
a delay of 10m – 1h between the first
extinction trial and subsequent trials

Preventing the return of fear in humans using
reconsolidation update mechanisms
Preventing the return of fear in humans using
reconsolidation update mechanisms
 Schiller, Monfils, Raio, Johnson, LeDoux, &
Phelps in the “Phelps Lab” using SCR

Preventing the return of fear in humans using
reconsolidation update mechanisms
 Schiller, Monfils, Raio, Johnson, LeDoux, &
Phelps in the “Phelps Lab” using SCR
 Showed 3 very important things

Preventing the return of fear in humans using
reconsolidation update mechanisms
 Schiller, Monfils, Raio, Johnson, LeDoux, &
Phelps in the “Phelps Lab” using SCR
 Showed 3 very important things


The “timed” reconsolidation effect works in
humans (n=65)
Preventing the return of fear in humans using
reconsolidation update mechanisms
 Schiller, Monfils, Raio, Johnson, LeDoux, &
Phelps in the “Phelps Lab” using SCR
 Showed 3 very important things

The “timed” reconsolidation effect works in
humans (n=65)
 It doesn’t show spontaneous recovery, even with
reinstatement, at 1 year follow up

Preventing the return of fear in humans using
reconsolidation update mechanisms
 Schiller, Monfils, Raio, Johnson, LeDoux, &
Phelps in the “Phelps Lab” using SCR
 Showed 3 very important things

The “timed” reconsolidation effect works in
humans (n=65)
 It doesn’t show spontaneous recovery, even with
reinstatement, at 1 year follow up
 It does not generalize to stimuli not retrieved at
the start of of the reconsolidation procedure

 Experiment
Day 2
Day3
• Group1: Acquisition
Reminder/10m/Extinction
Re-extinction
• Group2: Acquisition
Reminder/6h/Extinction
Re-extinction
• Group3: Acquisition
No reminder/Extinction
Re-extinction
•
Day 1
1
•
Copyright 2010 Macmillan Publishers Limited.
 Authors’
interpretation of experiment 1:
“These results indicate that the
spontaneous recovery of fear after
extinction can be prevented if extinction
training is conducted during the time
window in which the fear memory is
proposed to be undergoing
reconsolidation.”
 Experiment
2
• Participants from Experiment 1 were brought
back 1 year later
• They were exposed only to a reinstatement test
consisting of four unsignalled UCSs (shocks),
followed by non-reinforced presentations of the
conditioned stimuli
• Result: Subjects who had received the reminder
within the proposed reconsolidation time window
did not show reinstatement. The other subjects
showed significant reinstatement of the CR
 Experiment
3: Non-generalization
 Experiment
3: Non-generalization
• Used two different colored squares as CS+ for
shock (CSa+ & CSb+), another colored square
for CS-
 Experiment
3: Non-generalization
• Used two different colored squares as CS+ for
shock (CSa+ & CSb+), another colored square
for CS-
• Day 1
Day 2
Day3
• Acquisition
Reminder/10m/Extinction
(CSa+, CS-/10m/all 3 CSs)
Reinstatement (4 shocks)
Re-extinction, all 3 CSs
• CSa+, CSb+, CS-
 Experiment
3: Non-generalization
• Used two different colored squares as CS+ for
shock (CSa+ & CSb+), another colored square
for CS-
• Day 1
Day 2
Day3
• Acquisition
• CSa+, CSb+, CS-
Reminder/10m/Extinction
(CSa+, CS-/10m/all 3 CSs)
Reinstatement (4 shocks)
Re-extinction, all 3 CSs
Result: The conventionally extinguished CSb+ was reinstated
by the shocks on day 3, but the reconsolidated CSa+ was not
Copyright 2010 Macmillan Publishers Limited.
 The
 “In
authors interpreted:
conclusion, the present study showed
that updating fear memories with nonfearful information provided through
extinction training led to the blockade of
previously learned fear responses and a
lasting change in the original fear
memory. These results have significant
implications for the treatment of anxiety
disorders.”
 Within
the last year, there have been at
least three additional replications of
the same effect of timing alone on
reconsolidation in humans
 Agren,
Furmark, Eriksson, &
Fredrikson (2012) showed resistance
to reinstatement and slower relearning
after reconsolidation (10m window as
compared to 6h window)
 Genetic testing of the participants
showed that allelic differences in
particular genes modulated fear
memory reconsolidation
 Oyarzun
et al. (2012) paired colored
squares with loud aversive sounds,
and measured SCR during acquisition,
reconsolidation, and re-extinction
 Reinstatement occurred for stimuli
extinguished without a reminder trial
before extinction, but reconsolidated
stimuli (10m) were not susceptible to
reinstatement
 Agren,
Engman, Frick, Bjorkstrand,
Larsson, Furmark, & Fredrikson (2012)
Science
 Agren,
Engman, Frick, Bjorkstrand,
Larsson, Furmark, & Fredrikson (2012)
Science
 Provided
extinction within the
reconsolidation window (10m) or outside
the window (6h)
 Agren,
Engman, Frick, Bjorkstrand,
Larsson, Furmark, & Fredrikson (2012)
Science
 Provided
extinction within the
reconsolidation window (10m) or outside
the window (6h)
 The fear memory in the 10m group was
not subject to reinstatement
 Agren,
Engman, Frick, Bjorkstrand,
Larsson, Furmark, & Fredrikson (2012)
Science
 Provided
extinction within the
reconsolidation window (10m) or outside
the window (6h)
 The fear memory in the 10m group was
not subject to reinstatement
 The return of fear in the 6h group was
predicted by fMRI activity in the
basolateral amygdala 2 days earlier
During context
renewal, the 6h
group showed
significantly
greater activity in
the LBA than did
the 10m group,
indicating the
presence of an
active memory
trace in that
group.
 Kindt,
Soeter, & Vervliet (2009) Nature
Neuroscience
 Double
blind, placebo controlled test
of 40mg propranolol administered
90m prior to a single retrieval
 Used pictures of spiders as CS, electric
shock as UCS
 Measured fear-potentiated startle
response
 24h
after the single-trial reminder, the
group reminded on propranolol was
the only group that showed no startle
response, even after 3 reinstatement
shocks
 The propranolol group still indicated
high declarative expectations that they
would be shocked, but their
differential startle response had
disappeared
 The
authors interpreted: “Notably, the
propranolol manipulation left the
declarative memory for the acquired
contingency between the conditioned and
unconditioned stimulus intact, but this
knowledge no longer produced emotional
effects. Our finding…is consistent with
the observed double dissociation of fear
conditioning and declarative knowledge
relative to the amygdala and
hippocampus in humans (Phelps, 2004).”
 Brunet,
Orr, Tremblay, Robertson, Nader,
& Pitman (2008) J. Psychiat. Res.
 Randomized, double-blind, placebo
controlled trial
 Gave propranolol to chronic PTSD
patients after they described their
traumatic events
 One week later, patients listened to a
narrative of their traumas while HR, SC,
and corrugator EMG were monitored
 HR and SC were significantly lower in the
post-retrieval propranolol group
 The
theory of the “reconsolidation
window” after retrieval of an
amygdala-based fear memory is wellsupported and accepted now
 The
theory of the “reconsolidation
window” after retrieval of an
amygdala-based fear memory is wellsupported and accepted now
 Capitalizing on this window of memory
lability has been accomplished
numerous times, with and without
drugs
 The
theory of the “reconsolidation
window” after retrieval of an
amygdala-based fear memory is wellsupported and accepted now
 Capitalizing on this window of memory
lability has been accomplished
numerous times, with and without
drugs
 It is likely to yield new treatment
options, including timed exposures
 Because
a fear memory can be
permanently reversed using stimulus
timing alone, the principles of classical
extinction must now be amended
 Because
a fear memory can be
permanently reversed using stimulus
timing alone, the principles of classical
extinction must now be amended
 This change in the rules of behavioral
learning theory cannot be understood
without reference to the neural
mechanisms mediating the
phenomenon
















Agren, T., Engman, J., Frick, A., Bjorkstrand, J., Larsson, E., Fumark, T., & Fredrikson, M. (2012). Disruption of reconsolidation erases a fear
memory trace in the human amygdala. Science, 337, 1550-1552.
Agren, T., Engman, J., Frick, A., Bjorkstrand, J., Larsson, E., Fumark, T., & Fredrikson, M. (2012). Disruption of reconsolidation erases a fear
memory trace in the human amygdala [Supplemental material]. Science, 337, 1550-1552. doi: 10.1126/science.1223006.supp
Agren, T., Furmark, T., Eriksson, E., & Fredrikson (2012). Human fear reconsolidation and allelic differences in serotonergic and
dopaminergic genes. Translational Psychiatry, 2, (e76), 1-6. doi: 10.1038/tp.20125
Brunet, A., Orr, S. P., Tremblay, J., Robertson, K., Nader, K., & Pitman, R. K. (2008). Effect of post-retrieval propranolol on
psychophysiologic responding during subsequent script-driven traumatic imagery in post-traumatic stress disorder. Journal of Psychiatric
Research, 42, 503-506.
Craske, M. G., Kircanski, K., Zelikowsky , M., Mystkowski, J., Chowdhury, N., & Baker, A. (2008). Optimizing inhibitory learning during
exposure therapy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46, 5-27.
Debiec, J. & LeDoux, J. E. (2004). Disruption of reconsolidation but not consolidation of auditory fear conditioning by noradrenergic
blockade in the amygdala. Neuroscience, 129, 267-272.
Hofmann, S. G., Pollack, M. H., & Otto, M. W. (2006). Augmentation treatment of psychotherapy for anxiety disorders with D-cycloserine.
CNS Drug Reviews, 12, 208-217.
Kindt, M., Soeter, M., & Vervliet, B. (2009). Beyond extinction: Erasing human fear responses and preventing the return of fear. Nature
Neuroscience, 12, 256-258.
Kindt, M., Soeter, M., & Vervliet, B. (2009). Beyond extinction: Erasing human fear responses and preventing the return of fear
[Supplemental material]. Nature Neuroscience, 12, 256-258. doi: 10.1038/nn.2272.supp
Monfils, M., Cowansage, K. K., Klann, E., & LeDoux, J. E. (2009). Extinction-Reconsolidation boundaries: Key to persistent attenuation of
fear memories. Science, 324, 951-955.
Monfils, M., Cowansage, K. K., Klann, E., & LeDoux, J. E. (2009). Extinction-Reconsolidation boundaries: Key to persistent attenuation of
fear memories [Supplemental material]. Science, 324, 951-955. doi: 10.1126/science.1167975.supp
Nader, K., Schafe, G. E., & LeDoux, J. E. (2000). Fear memories require protein synthesis in the amygdala for reconsolidation after retrieval.
Nature, 406, 722-726.
Otto, M. W., Tolin, D. F., Simon, N. M., Pearlson, G. D., Basden, S, Meunier, S. A., Hofman, S. G., Eisenmenger, K., Krystal, J. H., & Pollack,
M. H. (2010). Efficacy of D-Cycloserine for enhancing response to cognitive-behavior therapy for panic disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 67,
365-370.
Oyarzun, J. P., Lopez-Barroso, D., Fuentemilla, L., Cucurell, D., Pedraza, C., Rodriguez-Fornells, A., Diego-Balaguer, R. (2012). Updating
fearful memories with extinction training during reconsolidation: A human study using auditory aversive stimuli. PLOS One, 7, (6), 1-9.
Retrieved from http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0038849
Schiller, D., Monfils, M., Raio, C. M., Johnson, D. C., LeDoux, J. E., & Phelps, E. A. (2010). Preventing the return of fear in humans using
reconsolidation update mechanisms. Nature, 463, 49-53.
Schiller, D., Monfils, M., Raio, C. M., Johnson, D. C., LeDoux, J. E., & Phelps, E. A. (2010). Preventing the return of fear in humans using
reconsolidation update mechanisms [Supplemental material]. Nature, 463, 49-53. doi: 101038/nature08637.supp
http://www.cogtherapy.com/ReconsolidationABCT2012.pptx