Sleep deprivation increases threat beliefs in human fear conditioning.

Sleep disturbances and anxiety disorders exhibit high comorbidity levels, but it remains unclear whether sleep problems are causes or consequences of increased anxiety. To experimentally probe the aetiological role of sleep disturbances in anxiety, we investigated in healthy participants how total sleep deprivation influences fear expression in a conditioning paradigm. In a fear conditioning procedure, one face stimulus (conditioned stimulus [CS+]) was paired with electric shock, whereas another face stimulus was not (unpaired stimulus [CS-]). Fear expression was tested the next morning using the two face stimuli from the training phase and a generalization stimulus (i.e. a morph between the CS+ and CS- stimuli). Between fear conditioning and test, participants were either kept awake in the laboratory for 12 hr (n = 20) or had a night of sleep at home (n = 20). Irrespective of stimulus type, subjective threat expectancies, but not skin conductance responses, were enhanced after sleep deprivation, relative to regular sleep. These results suggest that sleep disturbances may play a role in anxiety disorders by increasing perceived threat.

Reinstatement of thought conditioning following extinction and counterconditioning.

Pairing a cue (e.g., an image of a geometrical figure) with an outcome (e.g., an image with aversive content) can result in the cue eliciting thoughts of that outcome (i.e., thought conditioning). Previous research suggests an advantage of counterconditioning over extinction in reducing thoughts of (aversive) outcomes. However, it is unclear how robust this effect is. This study aimed to (1) replicate the previously observed advantage of counterconditioning over extinction and (2) test whether counterconditioning leads to less reinstatement of thoughts of an aversive outcome relative to extinction. Participants (N = 118) underwent a differential conditioning procedure and were then assigned to one of three conditions: extinction (i.e., the aversive outcome was no longer presented), no extinction (i.e., the aversive outcome continued to be presented) and counterconditioning (i.e., the aversive outcome was replaced with positive images). After three unsignaled outcome presentations, participants indicated in a return of fear test the extent to which they thought of the aversive outcome. As predicted, counterconditioning was more successful in reducing thinking of the aversive outcome than extinction. Yet, there were no differences in return of thoughts of the aversive outcome between the two conditions. Future research should consider other return of fear procedures.

Differences in perceptual memory determine generalization patterns.

Although memory of past experiences is crucial for the ability to transfer knowledge to new situations, surprisingly little research has directly investigated the relationship between memory and generalization. The present study sought to investigate how the perceptual memory of a trained stimulus influences generalization to similar stimuli. Forty participants underwent a fear conditioning procedure on Day 1, and separate memory recall and generalization tests on Day 2. We focused on two aspects of perceptual memory: namely memory bias (i.e., over- or underestimation of stimulus magnitude) and uncertainty. We found that memory bias predicted the pattern of generalized self-reported (expectancy ratings) and psychophysiological responses (fear-potentiated startle responses). Memory uncertainty was measured in two ways: self-reported uncertainty ratings and variability in stimulus recall. We found that higher levels of self-reported memory uncertainty corresponded with a broader generalization gradient on US expectancy, while greater variability in memory recall was associated with a broader generalization gradient on fear-potentiated startle responses. Taken together, our findings suggest that memory is an important determinant of generalized behavior and illustrate the need to account for these interindividual differences in perceptual memory when examining the generalization of learned responses.

Perceptual variability: Implications for learning and generalization.

The generalization of learned behavior has been extensively investigated, but accounting for variance in generalized responding remains a challenge. Based on recent advances, we demonstrate that the inclusion of perceptual measures in generalization research may lead to a better understanding of both intra- and interindividual differences in generalization. We explore various ways through which perceptual variability can influence generalized responding. We investigate its impact on the ability to discriminate between stimuli and how similarity between stimuli may be variable, rather than fixed, because of it. Subsequently, we argue that perceptual variations can yield different learning experiences and that interindividual differences in generalized responding may be understood from this perspective. Finally, we point to the role of memory and decision-making within this context. Throughout this paper, we argue that accounting for perception in current generalization protocols will improve the precision of obtained generalization gradients and the ability to infer latent mechanisms. This can inspire future attempts to use generalization gradients as a (clinical) predictor or to relate them to individual traits and neural correlates and, ultimately, may lead to new theoretical and clinical insights.

No persistent attenuation of fear memories in humans: A registered replication of the reactivation-extinction effect.

It has been proposed that memory retrieval can destabilize consolidated memories, after which they need to be reconsolidated in order to be retained. The presentation of relevant information during memory reconsolidation could then result in the modification of a destabilized memory trace, by allowing the memory trace to be updated before being reconsolidated. In line with this idea, Schiller et al. (2010) have demonstrated that memory retrieval shortly before extinction training can prevent the later recovery of conditioned fear responding that is observed after regular extinction training. Those findings have been the subject of considerable controversy, due in part to theoretical reasons but also due to a number of failures to obtain similar results in conceptual replication attempts. Here, we report the results of a highly powered, direct, independent replication of the critical conditions of Schiller et al. (2010, Experiment 1). Due to misrepresentation of the exclusion criteria in the original Schiller et al. (2010) report, data collection was considerably delayed. When we eventually managed to attain our pre-registered sample size, we found that we could not observe any benefit of reactivation-extinction over regular extinction training in preventing recovery of conditioned fear. The results of the present study, along with the mixed findings in the literature and the misreporting in Schiller et al. (2010), give cause to question whether there is robust evidence that reactivation-extinction prevents the return of fear in humans.