title: Appetitive behavioral traits and stimulus intensity influence maintenance of conditioned fear.
abstract: INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN APPETITIVE LEARNING HAVE LONG BEEN REPORTED, AND GENERALLY DIVIDE INTO TWO CLASSES OF RESPONSES: cue- vs. reward-directed. The influence of cue- vs. reward-directed phenotypes on aversive cue processing, is less well understood. In the current study, we first categorized rats based on their predominant cue-directed orienting responses during appetitive Pavlovian conditioning. Then, we investigated the effect of phenotype on the latency to exit a familiar dark environment and enter an unfamiliar illuminated open field. Next, we examined whether the two phenotypes responded differently to a reconsolidation updating manipulation (retrieval+extinction) after fear conditioning. We report that the rats with a cue-directed ("orienting") phenotype differentially respond to the open field, and also to fear conditioning, depending on US-intensity. In addition, our findings suggest that, regardless of appetitive phenotype or shock intensity, extinction within the reconsolidation window prevents spontaneous recovery of fear.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX, USA.
authors.forename: Megan E
authors.initials: ME
authors.lastname: Olshavsky
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX, USA.
authors.forename: Carolyn E
authors.initials: CE
authors.lastname: Jones
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX, USA.
authors.forename: Hongjoo J
authors.initials: HJ
authors.lastname: Lee
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX, USA ; Department of Neuroscience, Center for Learning and Memory, The University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX, USA.
authors.forename: Marie-H
authors.initials: MH
authors.lastname: Monfils
keywords: extinction; fear conditioning; open field; orienting; reconsolidation