The standard reconsolidation protocol for auditory fear-conditioning does not account for fear to the test context

Abstract

Research on memory reconsolidation has relied heavily on the use of Pavlovian auditory cued-fear conditioning. Here, an auditory cue (CS) is paired with a footshock (US) and the CS is later able to evoke a freezing response when presented alone. Some treatments, when administered to conditioned subjects immediately following a CS-alone (memory reactivation) trial, can attenuate the freezing they display on subsequent CS-alone (test) trials, in the absence of the treatment. This reduction in conditioned freezing is usually taken as evidence that the treatment disrupts post-reactivation reconsolidation of the memory trace representing the pairing of CS and US. We suggest an alternative interpretation that may account, either in whole or in part, for the attenuated freezing. The standard reconsolidation protocol (SRP) for auditory fear-conditioning has a design feature that results in second-order conditioning of fear to the test context, as this context is paired with the fear-evoking CS on the reactivation trial. Since freezing during the CS on the test will reflect the compound influence of contextual-fear and cued-fear, a post-reactivation treatment might attenuate freezing on the test by disrupting consolidation of second-order contextual-fear conditioning, even if it has little or no effect on the stability of the original cued-fear memory. This experiment confirmed that rats tested according to the SRP, in which the reactivation and test trials occur in the same context, freeze more on the test trial than rats that receive the reactivation and test trials in different contexts. This confound could lead to false-positive evidence of disrupted reconsolidation if it is not avoided or minimized, which can be accomplished with a modified protocol.