Unravelling the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying counterconditioning in humans
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by eLife
eLife Assessment
This important work combines self-report, neural and physiology data to examine the efficacy and mechanisms of counter conditioning versus extinction in reducing re-emergence of conditioned threat responses and show that this appears to rely on the nucleus accumbens rather than the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. These findings are supported by convincing evidence, though some areas could benefit from added clarity and a few targeted refinements and justifications of analytical choices. Results will be of interest to researchers across multiple subfields, including neuroscientists, cognitive theory researchers, and clinicians, particularly those with an interest in clinical applications in trauma therapies.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (eLife)
Abstract
Counterconditioning (CC) aims to enhance extinction of threat memories by establishing new associations of opposite valence. While its underlying neurocognitive mechanisms remain largely unexplored, previous studies suggest qualitatively different mechanisms from regular extinction. In this functional MRI study, participants underwent categorical threat conditioning (CS+/CS-: images of animals/tools), followed by either CC (CS+ images reinforced with monetary rewards, n=24) or regular extinction (n=24). The following day, we assessed spontaneous recovery of threat responses and episodic memory for CS+ and CS- category exemplars. While the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) was activated during regular extinction, participants undergoing CC showed persistent CS+- specific deactivation of the vmPFC and hippocampus, and CS+-specific activation of the nucleus accumbens (NAcc). The following day, physiological threat responses returned in the regular extinction group, but not in the CC group. Counterconditioning furthermore strengthened episodic memory for CS+ exemplars presented during CC, and retroactively also for CS+ exemplars presented during the threat conditioning phase. Our findings confirm that CC leads to more persistent extinction of threat memories, as well as altered consolidation of the threat conditioning episode. Crucially, we show a qualitatively different activation pattern during CC versus regular extinction, with a shift away from the vmPFC and towards the NAcc.
Article activity feed
-
eLife Assessment
This important work combines self-report, neural and physiology data to examine the efficacy and mechanisms of counter conditioning versus extinction in reducing re-emergence of conditioned threat responses and show that this appears to rely on the nucleus accumbens rather than the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. These findings are supported by convincing evidence, though some areas could benefit from added clarity and a few targeted refinements and justifications of analytical choices. Results will be of interest to researchers across multiple subfields, including neuroscientists, cognitive theory researchers, and clinicians, particularly those with an interest in clinical applications in trauma therapies.
-
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
The authors attempted to replicate previous work showing that counterconditioning leads to more persistent reduction of threat responses, relative to extinction. They also aimed to examine the neural mechanisms underlying counterconditioning and extinction. They achieved both of these aims and were able to provide some additional information, such as how counterconditioning impacts memory consolidation. Having a better understanding of which neural networks are engaged during counterconditioning may provide novel pharmacological targets to aid in therapies for traumatic memories. It will be interesting to follow up by examining the impact of varying amounts of time between acquisition and counterconditioning phases, to enhance replicability to real-world therapeutic settings.
Major strengths
• This paper is …
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
The authors attempted to replicate previous work showing that counterconditioning leads to more persistent reduction of threat responses, relative to extinction. They also aimed to examine the neural mechanisms underlying counterconditioning and extinction. They achieved both of these aims and were able to provide some additional information, such as how counterconditioning impacts memory consolidation. Having a better understanding of which neural networks are engaged during counterconditioning may provide novel pharmacological targets to aid in therapies for traumatic memories. It will be interesting to follow up by examining the impact of varying amounts of time between acquisition and counterconditioning phases, to enhance replicability to real-world therapeutic settings.
Major strengths
• This paper is very well written and attempts to comprehensively assess multiple aspects of counterconditioning and extinction processes. For instance, the addition of memory retrieval tests is not core to the primary hypotheses but provides additional mechanistic information on how episodic memory is impacted by counterconditioning. This methodical approach is commonly seen in animal literature, but less so in human studies.
• The Group x Cs-type x Phase repeated measure statistical tests with 'differentials' as outcome variables are quite complex, however, the authors have generally done a good job of teasing out significant F test findings with post hoc tests and presenting the data well visually. It is reassuring that there is a convergence between self-report data on arousal and valence and the pupil dilation response. Skin conductance is a notoriously challenging modality, so it is not too concerning that this was placed in the supplementary materials. Neural responses also occurred in logical regions with regard to reward learning.
• Strong methodology with regards to neuroimaging analysis, and physiological measures.
• The authors are very clear on documenting where there were discrepancies from their pre-registration and providing valid rationales for why.
Major Weaknesses
• The statistics showing that counterconditioning prevents differential spontaneous recovery are the weakest p values of the paper (and using one-tailed tests, although this is valid due to directions being pre-hypothesised). This may be due to a relatively small number of participants and some variability in responses. It is difficult to see how many people were included in the final PDR and neuroimaging analyses, with exclusions not clearly documented. Based on Figure 3, there are relatively small numbers in the PDR analyses (n=14 and n=12 in counterconditioning and extinction, respectively). Of these, each group had 4 people with differential PDR results in the opposing direction to the group mean. This perhaps warrants mention as the reported effects may not hold in a subgroup of individuals, which could have clinical implications.
-
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
The present study sets out to examine the impact of counterconditioning (CC) and extinction on conditioned threat responses in humans, particularly looking at neural mechanisms involved in threat memory suppression. By combining behavioral, physiological, and neuroimaging (fMRI) data, the authors aim to provide a clear picture of how CC might engage unique neural circuits and coding dynamics, potentially offering a more robust reduction in threat responses compared to traditional extinction.
Strengths:
One major strength of this work lies in its thoughtful and unique design - integrating subjective, physiological, and neuroimaging measures to capture the variouse aspects of counterconditioning (CC) in humans. Additionally, the study is centered on a well-motivated hypothesis and the findings have …
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
The present study sets out to examine the impact of counterconditioning (CC) and extinction on conditioned threat responses in humans, particularly looking at neural mechanisms involved in threat memory suppression. By combining behavioral, physiological, and neuroimaging (fMRI) data, the authors aim to provide a clear picture of how CC might engage unique neural circuits and coding dynamics, potentially offering a more robust reduction in threat responses compared to traditional extinction.
Strengths:
One major strength of this work lies in its thoughtful and unique design - integrating subjective, physiological, and neuroimaging measures to capture the variouse aspects of counterconditioning (CC) in humans. Additionally, the study is centered on a well-motivated hypothesis and the findings have the potential to improve the current understanding of pathways associated with emotional and cognitive control.
The data presentation is systematic, and the results on behavioral and physiological measures fit well with the hypothesized outcomes. The neuroimaging results also provide strong support for distinct neural mechanisms underlying CC versus extinction.
Weaknesses:
Overall, this study is a well-conducted and thought-provoking investigation into counterconditioning, with strong potential to advance our understanding of threat modulation mechanisms. Two main weaknesses concern the scope and decisions regarding analysis choices. First, while the findings are solid, the topic of counterconditioning is relatively niche and may have limited appeal to a broader audience. Expanding the discussion to connect counterconditioning more explicitly to widely studied frameworks in emotional regulation or cognitive control would enhance the paper's accessibility and relevance to a wider range of readers. This broader framing could also underscore the generalizability and broader significance of the results. In addition, detailed steps in the statistical procedures and analysis parameters seem to be missing. This makes it challenging for readers to interpret the results in light of potential limitations given the data modality and/or analysis choices.
-
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
In this manuscript, Wirz et al use neuroimaging (fMRI) to show that counterconditioning produces a longer lasting reduction in fear conditioning relative to extinction and appears to rely on the nucleus accumbens rather than the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. These important findings are supported by convincing evidence and will be of interest to researchers across multiple subfields, including neuroscientists, cognitive theory researchers, and clinicians.
In large part, the authors achieved their aims of giving a qualitative assessment of the behavioural mechanisms of counterconditioning versus extinction, as well as investigating the brain mechanisms. The results support their conclusions and give interesting insights into the psychological and neurobiological mechanisms of the processes that …
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
In this manuscript, Wirz et al use neuroimaging (fMRI) to show that counterconditioning produces a longer lasting reduction in fear conditioning relative to extinction and appears to rely on the nucleus accumbens rather than the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. These important findings are supported by convincing evidence and will be of interest to researchers across multiple subfields, including neuroscientists, cognitive theory researchers, and clinicians.
In large part, the authors achieved their aims of giving a qualitative assessment of the behavioural mechanisms of counterconditioning versus extinction, as well as investigating the brain mechanisms. The results support their conclusions and give interesting insights into the psychological and neurobiological mechanisms of the processes that underlie the unlearning, or counteracting, of threat conditioning.
Strengths:
* Mostly clearly written with interesting psychological insights
* Excellent behavioural design, well-controlled and tests for a number of different psychological phenomena (e.g. extinction, recovery, reinstatement, etc).
* Very interesting results regarding the neural mechanisms of each process.
* Good acknowledgement of the limitations of the study.Weaknesses:
* I think the acquisition data belongs in the main figure, so the reader can discern whether or not there are directional differences prior to CC and extinction training that could account for the differences observed. This is particularly important for the valence data which appears to differ at baseline (supplemental figure 2C).
* I was confused in several sections about the chronology of what was done and when. For instance, it appears that individuals went through re-extinction, but this is just called extinction in places.
* I was also confused about the data in Figure 3. It appears that the CC group maintained differential pupil dilation during CC, whereas extinction participants didn't, and the authors suggest that this is indicative of the anticipation of reward. Do reward-associated cues typically cause pupil dilation? Is this a general arousal response? If so, does this mean that the CSs become equally arousing over time for the CC group whereas the opposite occurs for the extinction group (i.e. Figure 3, bottom graphs)? It is then further confusing as to why the CC group lose differential responding on the spontaneous recovery test. I'm not sure this was adequately addressed.
* I am not sure that the memories tested were truly episodic
* Twice as many female participants than males
* No explanation as to why shocks were varied in intensity and how (psuedo-randomly?) -
-
-
