Lorenzo Diaz-Mataix

Detection of a temporal error triggers reconsolidation of amygdala-dependent memories.

Updating memories is critical for adaptive behaviors, but the rules and mechanisms governing that process are still not well defined. During a limited time window, the reactivation of consolidated aversive memories triggers memory lability and induces a plasticity-dependent reconsolidation process in the lateral nucleus of amygdala (LA) [1-5]. However, whether new information is necessary for initiating reconsolidation is not known. Here we show that changing the temporal relationship between the conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (US) during reactivation is sufficient to trigger synaptic plasticity and reconsolidation of an aversive memory in the LA. These findings demonstrate that time is a core part of the CS-US association and that new information must be presented during reactivation in order to trigger LA-dependent reconsolidation processes. In sum, this study provides new basic knowledge about the precise rules governing memory reconsolidation of aversive memories that might be used to treat traumatic memories.

Hebbian and neuromodulatory mechanisms interact to trigger associative memory formation

Significance The influential Hebbian plasticity hypothesis suggests that an increase in the strength of connections between neurons whose activity is correlated produces memories. Other theories, however, propose that neuromodulatory systems need to be activated together with Hebbian plasticity mechanisms to engage memory formation. The present work provides direct in vivo evidence supporting the idea that a parallel mechanism involving neuromodulation and Hebbian processes is both necessary and sufficient to trigger synaptic strengthening and behavioral associative memory formation. This parallel process may represent a general mechanism used by many learning systems in the brain. A long-standing hypothesis termed “Hebbian plasticity” suggests that memories are formed through strengthening of synaptic connections between neurons with correlated activity. In contrast, other theories propose that coactivation of Hebbian and neuromodulatory processes produce the synaptic strengthening that underlies memory formation. Using optogenetics we directly tested whether Hebbian plasticity alone is both necessary and sufficient to produce physiological changes mediating actual memory formation in behaving animals. Our previous work with this method suggested that Hebbian mechanisms are sufficient to produce aversive associative learning under artificial conditions involving strong, iterative training. Here we systematically tested whether Hebbian mechanisms are necessary and sufficient to produce associative learning under more moderate training conditions that are similar to those that occur in daily life. We measured neural plasticity in the lateral amygdala, a brain region important for associative memory storage about danger. Our findings provide evidence that Hebbian mechanisms are necessary to produce neural plasticity in the lateral amygdala and behavioral memory formation. However, under these conditions Hebbian mechanisms alone were not sufficient to produce these physiological and behavioral effects unless neuromodulatory systems were coactivated. These results provide insight into how aversive experiences trigger memories and suggest that combined Hebbian and neuromodulatory processes interact to engage associative aversive learning.

Sensory-Specific Associations Stored in the Lateral Amygdala Allow for Selective Alteration of Fear Memories

Consolidated long-term fear memories become labile and can be disrupted after being reactivated by the presentation of the unconditioned stimulus (US). Whether this is due to an alteration of the conditioned stimulus (CS) representation in the lateral amygdala (LA) is not known. Here, we show in rats that fear memory reactivation through presentation of the aversive US, like CS presentation, triggers a process which, when disrupted, results in a selective depotentiation of CS-evoked neural responses in the LA in correlation with a selective suppression of CS-elicited fear memory. Thus, an aversive US triggers the reconsolidation of its associated predictor representation in LA. This new finding suggests that sensory-specific associations are stored in the lateral amygdala, allowing for their selective alteration by either element of the association.

The amygdala: A potential player in timing CS–US intervals

Pavlovian conditioning is the reference paradigm for the study of associative learning based on the programmed relation of two stimuli, the conditioned stimulus (CS) and the unconditioned stimulus (US). Some authors believe that learning the CS-US interval is a co-requisite of or a pre-requisite to learning the CS-US association. There is a substantial literature showing that the amygdala is a critical player in Pavlovian conditioning, with both aversive and appetitive USs. We review a sparse but growing body of literature suggesting that the amygdala may also participate in processing the timing of the CS-US interval. We discuss whether the amygdala, in particular its central, basal and lateral nuclei, in concert with the network it belongs to, may play a role in learning the CS-US interval. We also suggest new and dedicated strategies that would result in better knowledge of the neural mechanisms underlying the learning of the CS-US time interval in isolation from the CS-US association.

The selectivity of aversive memory reconsolidation and extinction processes depends on the initial encoding of the Pavlovian association

In reconsolidation studies, memories are typically retrieved by an exposure to a single conditioned stimulus (CS). We have previously demonstrated that reconsolidation processes are CS-selective, suggesting that memories retrieved by the CS exposure are discrete and reconsolidate separately. Here, using a compound stimulus in which two distinct CSs are concomitantly paired with the same aversive unconditioned stimulus (US), we show in rats that reexposure to one of the components of the compound CS triggers extinction or reconsolidation of the other component. This suggests that the original training conditions play a critical role in memory retrieval and reconsolidation.

The Neural Foundations of Reaction and Action in Aversive Motivation.

Much of the early research in aversive learning concerned motivation and reinforcement in avoidance conditioning and related paradigms. When the field transitioned toward the focus on Pavlovian threat conditioning in isolation, this paved the way for the clear understanding of the psychological principles and neural and molecular mechanisms responsible for this type of learning and memory that has unfolded over recent decades. Currently, avoidance conditioning is being revisited, and with what has been learned about associative aversive learning, rapid progress is being made. We review, below, the literature on the neural substrates critical for learning in instrumental active avoidance tasks and conditioned aversive motivation.

Updating temporal expectancy of an aversive event engages striatal plasticity under amygdala control.

Pavlovian aversive conditioning requires learning of the association between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an unconditioned, aversive stimulus (US) but also involves encoding the time interval between the two stimuli. The neurobiological bases of this time interval learning are unknown. Here, we show that in rats, the dorsal striatum and basal amygdala belong to a common functional network underlying temporal expectancy and learning of a CS–US interval. Importantly, changes in coherence between striatum and amygdala local field potentials (LFPs) were found to couple these structures during interval estimation within the lower range of the theta rhythm (3–6 Hz). Strikingly, we also show that a change to the CS–US time interval results in long-term changes in cortico-striatal synaptic efficacy under the control of the amygdala. Collectively, this study reveals physiological correlates of plasticity mechanisms of interval timing that take place in the striatum and are regulated by the amygdala.

Updating of aversive memories after temporal error detection is differentially modulated by mTOR across development

The updating of a memory is triggered whenever it is reactivated and a mismatch from what is expected (i.e., prediction error) is detected, a process that can be unraveled through the memorys sensitivity to protein synthesis inhibitors (i.e., reconsolidation). As noted in previous studies, in Pavlovian threat/aversive conditioning in adult rats, prediction error detection and its associated protein synthesis-dependent reconsolidation can be triggered by reactivating the memory with the conditioned stimulus (CS), but without the unconditioned stimulus (US), or by presenting a CS-US pairing with a different CS-US interval than during the initial learning. Whether similar mechanisms underlie memory updating in the young is not known. Using similar paradigms with rapamycin (an mTORC1 inhibitor), we show that preweaning rats (PN18-20) do form a long-term memory of the CS-US interval, and detect a 10-sec versus 30-sec temporal prediction error. However, the resulting updating/reconsolidation processes become adult-like after adolescence (PN30-40). Our results thus show that while temporal prediction error detection exists in preweaning rats, specific infant-type mechanisms are at play for associative learning and memory.

Manipulating Human Memory Through Reconsolidation: Stones Left Unturned

Memory reconsolidation is the process by which a previously stored memory, when recalled, becomes unstable and susceptible to modification before being re-stored. Reconsolidation disruption protocols (RDPs) may prove to be powerful therapeutic tools for psychiatric disorders that involve maladaptive learning and memory. However, Elsey and Kindt (2016) present an overly optimistic and incomplete portrayal of the state of reconsolidation research, which leads them to minimize scientific and ethical apprehensions about manipulating human memory through reconsolidation. This is problematic because their depiction of reconsolidation research could mislead stakeholders—such as clinicians, patients, and health policymakers—when evaluating the potential harms and benefits of translating RDPs to the clinical context. We address three pressing concerns about the authors’ depiction of reconsolidation research: (1) insufficient and contradictory evidence about the effectiveness or clinical utility of propranolol RDPs; (2) risk for extemporaneous translation of propranolol RDP research to clinical practice; and (3) lack of discussion of other kinds of RDPs that generate significant ethical challenges—it is necessary to consider different kinds of RDPs when drawing conclusions about the ethics of a topic as broad as “manipulating human memory through reconsolidation.”

Characterization of the amplificatory effect of norepinephrine in the acquisition of Pavlovian threat associations

The creation of auditory threat Pavlovian memory requires an initial learning stage in which a neutral conditioned stimulus (CS), such as a tone, is paired with an aversive one (US), such as a shock. In this phase, the CS acquires the capacity of predicting the occurrence of the US and therefore elicits conditioned defense responses. Norepinephrine (NE), through β-adrenergic receptors in the amygdala, enhances threat memory by facilitating the acquisition of the CS-US association, but the nature of this effect has not been described. Here we show that NE release, induced by the footshock of the first conditioning trial, promotes the subsequent enhancement of learning. Consequently, blocking NE transmission disrupts multitrial but not one-trial conditioning. We further found that increasing the time between the conditioning trials eliminates the amplificatory effect of NE. Similarly, an unsignaled footshock delivered in a separate context immediately before conditioning can enhance learning. These results help define the conditions under which NE should and should not be expected to alter threat processing and fill an important gap in the understanding of the neural processes relevant to the pathophysiology of stress and anxiety disorders.