↓ Skip to main content

In Search for Boundary Conditions of Reconsolidation: A Failure of Fear Memory Interference

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
In Search for Boundary Conditions of Reconsolidation: A Failure of Fear Memory Interference
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, April 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00065
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natalie Schroyens, Tom Beckers, Merel Kindt

Abstract

The presentation of a fear memory cue can result in mere memory retrieval, destabilization of the reactivated memory trace, or the formation of an extinction memory. The interaction between the degree of novelty during reactivation and previous learning conditions is thought to determine the outcome of a reactivation session. This study aimed to evaluate whether contextual novelty can prevent cue-induced destabilization and disruption of a fear memory acquired by non-asymptotic learning. To this end, fear memory was reactivated in a novel context or in the original context of learning, and fear memory reactivation was followed by the administration of propranolol, an amnestic drug. Remarkably, fear memory was not impaired by post-reactivation propranolol administration or extinction training under the usual conditions used in our lab, irrespective of the reactivation context. These unexpected findings are discussed in the light of our current experimental parameters and alleged boundary conditions on memory destabilization.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 99 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 23%
Student > Master 22 22%
Researcher 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 15 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 39 39%
Neuroscience 24 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Philosophy 1 1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 21 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 April 2017.
All research outputs
#5,578,696
of 26,322,284 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#877
of 3,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,665
of 328,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#16
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,322,284 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,497 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,788 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.