Memory is the means by which the past connects with the present to guide our future interactions with the environment. One of the ways in which memory achieves this remarkable feat is by integrating the sensory and emotional elements of experiences that are separated in time but share common elements. For example, suppose that while hiking through a rainforest in tropical Australia you hear an (unfamiliar) deep booming sound and then see the (unfamiliar) bird-like animal who is making that sound. The next day, you see a poster showing a photograph of the animal (a cassowary) with a heading ‘extremely dangerous.’ Finally, when again hiking through the rainforest you hear the booming sound and feel apprehensive, even frightened.

This hypothetical scenario illustrates how the sound-animal memory formed at one point in time and the animal-danger memory formed at a second point were integrated via their common, animal, element to generate defensive/fear reactions to the sound. This type of integration could occur in two ways (Shohamy and Daw, 2015; Schlichting and Preston, 2015). The first is through formation of indirect associations between past sensory experiences and emotional events as they are encountered (Hall, 1996; Holland, 1981; Konorski, 1967; Ward-Robinson and Hall, 1999): that is during formation of the animal-danger memory, the past sound-animal memory is activated and integrated with the emotional memory content (what might be called ‘online’ integration). The second is through retrieval and chaining of memories at choice points (Rizley and Rescorla, 1972; Sadacca et al., 2018; Sharpe et al., 2017): that is re-exposure to the sound activates the sound-animal memory, which in turn, activates the animal-danger memory, resulting in expression of defensive/fear reactions to the sound (‘memory-chaining’).

At present, very little is known about when/how such memories are integrated in the brain to generate action. The present study addressed these questions using an animal model, sensory preconditioning in rats. We specifically examined whether sensory and emotional memories, which are consolidated in distinct regions of the medial temporal lobe (MTL) (Holmes et al., 2013; Holmes et al., 2018; Parkes and Westbrook, 2010), are integrated online when new memories are formed, or through a memory-chaining mechanism when actions are required. The protocol consisted in three stages that were separated by 24 hr. In stage 1, rats are exposed to pairings of two relatively innocuous stimuli (e.g., a sound followed by a light), and in stage 2 they are exposed to pairings of the light and footshock. Finally, in stage 3, rats are tested with the sound and then with the light. Rats typically exhibit defensive reactions (freezing) when tested with the preconditioned sound, even though it had never been paired with danger, and when tested with the conditioned light, that had been paired with danger.

Control conditions confirm that freezing to the sound in this protocol requires formation of sound-light and light-shock memories in training (it is not due to generalization of fear), and previous work in our laboratory has shown that the substrates of these memories are doubly dissociable in the MTL (Holmes et al., 2013; Holmes et al., 2018). The sound-light memory that forms in stage 1 requires neuronal activity, including activation of NMDA receptors, in the most anterior region of the parahippocampal cortex, the perirhinal cortex (PRh), but not the basolateral amygdala complex (BLA) (Holmes et al., 2013; Parkes and Westbrook, 2010); whereas the light-shock memory that forms in stage 2 requires neuronal activity, including activation of NMDA receptors, in the BLA, but not the PRh (Parkes and Westbrook, 2010; Wilensky et al., 2006). The major question of interest is when the sound-light and light-shock memories are integrated to generate freezing responses to the test presentations of the sound.

The experiments reported here provide further evidence that sound-light and light-shock memories have distinct substrates within the MTL. Previous work had shown that formation of the sound-light memory requires activation of NMDAr in the PRh (Holmes et al., 2013), and that the consolidation of this memory requires ERK/MAPK signaling in the PRh (Holmes et al., 2018). The present work shows that this consolidation also requires de novo protein synthesis in the PRh (Experiment 2). In contrast, the PRh is not required for encoding, consolidating or retrieving information about a light-shock fear memory (Phillips and LeDoux, 1995; Romanski and LeDoux, 1992a; Romanski and LeDoux, 1992b; Wilensky et al., 2006). Instead, the BLA is critical for each of these processes (Johansen et al., 2011): encoding of a light-shock fear memory requires activation of NMDAr in the BLA (Campeau et al., 1992; Fanselow and Kim, 1994; Miserendino et al., 1990); consolidation of this memory requires neuronal activity in this region, including de novo protein synthesis (Maren et al., 2003; Schafe and LeDoux, 2000); and retrieval/expression of a light-shock fear memory requires neuronal activity in the BLA, but occurs independently of de novo protein synthesis (Abel and Lattal, 2001; Bourtchouladze et al., 1998; Helmstetter and Bellgowan, 1994; but see Lopez et al., 2015).

Given the distinct substrates of the sound-light and light-shock memories in the PRh and BLA, respectively, the major question of interest asked here was when these memories are integrated so that the sound, which is never paired with shock, comes to elicit the defensive or fear response of freezing. To address this question, we examined whether manipulations of the PRh during formation of the light-shock fear memory influenced the test level of freezing to the preconditioned sound. The results showed that pharmacological inhibition of activity in the PRh before light-shock pairings spared freezing to the directly conditioned light, but reduced freezing to the preconditioned sound. They additionally showed that inhibition of PRh activity after light-shock pairings, including inhibition of de novo protein synthesis, produced the same pattern of test results. These manipulations should have left intact the PRh dependent sound-light memory formed in stage 1 and the BLA dependent light-shock memory formed in stage 2. Hence, if these memories were integrated at the time of testing (via the memory chaining mechanism described above), then independently of our PRh manipulations, the sound should have activated its now dangerous associate, the light, and elicited freezing. The fact that this did not occur indicates that integration had occurred in advance of testing, when the light was rendered dangerous via its pairing with shock (see also Coureaud et al., 2013). Nonetheless, we acknowledge that even these results do not completely rule out the possibility that some portion of the integration occurs at the time of testing in stage 3. For example, given the initial coding of the light in the PRh in stage 1 (as part of the sound-light association), it is possible that the light-shock association that forms in stage two is coded in parallel in the amygdala (principally) and PRh. If so, the PRh may further support responding to the sensory preconditioned sound by integrating the sound-light and light-shock associations at the point of testing (or at least the portions of these associations that are represented in the PRh). According to this account, silencing the PRh during stage 2 would have prevented coding of the light-shock association in this region, thereby undermining the possibility of memory chaining during testing in stage 3; and silencing the PRh during stage 3 would have blocked memory chaining directly, thereby disrupting responding to the preconditioned sound.

The present study used a between-subject design to show that freezing to the sensory preconditioned sound is doubly contingent on sound-light and light-shock pairings across the two stages of training; and that the PRh codes a mediated sound-shock association during stage 2 conditioning of the light. It does, however, leave open the question of whether the PRh codes for other types of mediated associations. This question could be assessed using a within-subject design, in which rats are exposed to two sets of stimulus pairings, for example tone-light and noise-flashing light (flash), in stage 1; shocked presentations of the light and non-shocked presentations of the flash in stage 2; and test presentations of the tone and noise in stage 3. Sensory preconditioning would be evident as greater test responding to the tone than the noise (e.g., Jones et al., 2012); see also Sharpe et al., 2017). Such a difference could originate in two distinct associations formed across stage 2 of training: an excitatory light-shock association and an inhibitory flash-no shock association. That is, just as the shocked presentations of the light allow the tone to enter into an association with the shock, non-reinforced presentations of the flash should allow the noise to enter into an inhibitory, no shock association. In other words, the test differences between the tone and the noise could be due to the former enhancing and the latter reducing freezing. Since both the tone-light and noise-flash associations are likely to be encoded in the PRh in stage 1, we predict that silencing activity in the PRh across the discriminative conditioning of the light and flash in stage 2 would eliminate the test differences between the tone and the noise. It would do so by preventing not only the mediated excitatory conditioning of the tone but also the mediated inhibitory conditioning of the noise.

It is worth noting that the within-subject design just described requires many trials to achieve differential responding in stage 2; that is, for the rats to freeze when presented with the shocked light and not to freeze when presented with the non-shocked flash. In contrast, relatively few shocked presentations were used here. This difference may be important with respect to when the information acquired in sensory preconditioning and conditioning is integrated. There is evidence that the likelihood of mediated conditioning decreases with the number of conditioning trials (Holland, 1998). Moreover, Jones et al. (2012) used just such a within-subject, sensory preconditioning design in an appetitive conditioning protocol (one that involved multiple trials to produce the discrimination in stage 2) to show that integration occurred at the time of testing: specifically, they reported that silencing the orbitofrontal cortex prior to testing reduced the expression of sensory preconditioned appetitive responding (see also Sharpe et al., 2017). Nonetheless, it remains to be shown within a single study that variations in the number of stage 2 conditioning trials regulates whether integration occurs in stage 2 (online) or stage 3 (memory chaining).

The present findings have also identified both commonalities and differences between sensory preconditioning and a conceptually-related protocol, second-order conditioning, in which animals are exposed to the same training but in the reverse order, that is light-shock pairings in stage 1 and sound-light pairings in stage 2. Like in sensory preconditioning, rats integrate the memories formed in the two stages of second-order conditioning so that the sound, which is not paired with shock, elicits freezing; and this integration occurs during training rather than at test (Gewirtz and Davis, 2000; Parkes and Westbrook, 2010; Rizley and Rescorla, 1972). However, the integration in second-order conditioning differs from that in sensory preconditioning in two critical respects. First, unlike in sensory preconditioning where the two component memories are encoded and stored in distinct regions of the MTL (Holmes et al., 2013), both of the component memories in second-order conditioning are encoded and stored in the BLA (Holmes et al., 2013; Parkes and Westbrook, 2010). Second, unlike in sensory preconditioning, where consolidation of the integrated (or mediated) sound-shock memory requires de novo protein synthesis in the PRh, consolidation of the integrated second-order memory occurs independently of de novo protein synthesis in the BLA (Lay et al., 2018; Leidl et al., 2018). These differences show that the order in which information is presented (or processed) determines how distinct memories are encoded and stored in the MTL, as well as the mechanisms involved in their integration. The integration of memories stored in distinct MTL regions (the PRh and BLA in sensory preconditioning) requires cellular changes that are supported by de novo protein synthesis; whereas the integration of memories stored within the same MTL region (the BLA in second-order conditioning) does not require this synthesis (Lay et al., 2018; Leidl et al., 2018).

The present findings also extend previous work showing that contextual information encoded and stored in one region of the brain can be retrieved and integrated with motivational information processed elsewhere (Wolosin et al., 2012; Zeithamova et al., 2012): for example memories of specific contexts are encoded and stored in distinct regions of the hippocampus, and when activated (through stimulation of context-specific ensembles, or exposure to reminder cues), can associate with nociceptive information in the amygdala to form a context fear memory (Bae et al., 2015; Matus-Amat et al., 2007; Ramirez et al., 2013; Rudy and O'Reilly, 2001). They extend these findings by showing that animals can integrate a distinct sensory element of one memory (not just context elements) with motivational components of another (even when the two have never been experienced together); and that this integration involves protein synthesis-dependent changes in the PRh. This is generally consistent with current theories of MTL function (for reviews, see Squire et al., 2004; and McGaugh et al., 2002) which hold that: (i) context and stimulus elements are represented in a distributed network of regions, (ii) the values of these representations are updated across the course of experience (i.e., ‘on the fly’ rather than at choice points), and (iii) the amygdala plays a critical role in this updating process. However, the results of the final experiment suggest that these theories require further elaboration: retrieval/expression of the mediated sound-shock memory required activity in the PRh, whereas retrieval/expression of the directly conditioned light-shock memory did not. This difference implies that, as a consequence of its direct pairings with shock, the light was recoded so that responding to this stimulus ceased to depend on the PRh. It is consistent with previous work which showed that danger shifts the encoding and consolidation of innocuous sensory information from the PRh to the BLA (Holmes et al., 2018; Holmes and Westbrook, 2017). Thus, in addition to its role as a modulator of PRh-dependent stimulus representations, the BLA itself encodes and recodes stimulus representations when danger is present; and thereafter, remains involved in the retrieval/expression of information about those stimuli.

In summary, using a sensory preconditioning protocol, the present study provides evidence that the brain integrates sound-light and light-shock memories across the course of training; and that the cortical region that codes for the integration, the PRh, remains critical for the subsequent retrieval and expression of the integrated memory. As noted above, our findings do not preclude the possibility that some portion of the integration in the present study occurred at the point of testing; or indeed, that there are circumstances under which sensory and emotional memories are exclusively integrated at the time of testing (Rizley and Rescorla, 1972; Sadacca et al., 2018; Sharpe et al., 2017). They do, however, suggest that with very simple procedures of the sort used here, the bulk of the integration occurs during training. More generally, our findings reiterate that memory is not a repository of experience, but rather, a process of construction and reconstruction. These constructions are not a limitation of the system, but rather, a feature of its design: they help animals and people to solve novel problems in the absence of further experience, and thereby, adapt to changes in the environment.

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for Figures 1, 2, 4 and 5.

1. 1. Abel T
   2. Lattal KM

   (2001) Molecular mechanisms of memory acquisition, consolidation and retrieval

   Current Opinion in Neurobiology 11:180–187.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4388(00)00194-X

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Bae SE
   2. Holmes NM
   3. Westbrook RF

   (2015) False context fear memory in rats

   Learning & Memory 22:519–525.

   https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.039065.115

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Bourtchouladze R
   2. Abel T
   3. Berman N
   4. Gordon R
   5. Lapidus K
   6. Kandel ER

   (1998)

   Different training procedures recruit either one or two critical periods for contextual memory consolidation, each of which requires protein synthesis and PKA

   Learning & Memory 5:365–374.

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Campeau S
   2. Miserendino MJ
   3. Davis M

   (1992) Intra-amygdala infusion of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist AP5 blocks acquisition but not expression of fear-potentiated startle to an auditory conditioned stimulus

   Behavioral Neuroscience 106:569–574.

   https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.106.3.569

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. Book

   1. Caterall WA
   2. Mackie K

   (1996)

   Local anesthetics

   In: Hardman J. G, Limbard L. E, Molinoff P. B, Rudden R. W, Goodman Gillman A, editors. Goodman and Gillman's the Pharmacological Basis of Experimental Therapeutics (Ninth Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 521–556.

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Coureaud G
   2. Tourat A
   3. Ferreira G

   (2013) Sensory preconditioning in newborn rabbits: from common to distinct odor memories

   Learning & memory 20:453–458.

   https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.030965.113

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Davis HP
   2. Squire LR

   (1984) Protein synthesis and memory: a review

   Psychological Bulletin 96:518–559.

   https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.96.3.518

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Duvarci S
   2. Nader K
   3. LeDoux JE

   (2005) Activation of extracellular signal-regulated kinase- mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade in the amygdala is required for memory reconsolidation of auditory fear conditioning

   The European journal of neuroscience 21:283–289.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2004.03824.x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Fanselow MS

   (1980) Conditional and unconditional components of post-shock freezing

   Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science 15:177–182.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03001163

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Fanselow MS
    2. Kim JJ

    (1994) Acquisition of contextual Pavlovian fear conditioning is blocked by application of an NMDA receptor antagonist D,L-2-amino-5-phosphonovaleric acid to the basolateral amygdala

    Behavioral Neuroscience 108:210–212.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.108.1.210

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Gewirtz JC
    2. Davis M

    (2000) Using Pavlovian higher-order conditioning paradigms to investigate the neural substrates of emotional learning and memory

    Learning & Memory 7:257–266.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.35200

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Hall G

    (1996) Learning about associatively activated stimulus representations: implications for acquired equivalence and perceptual learning

    Animal Learning & Behavior 24:233–255.

    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198973

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Haralambous T
    2. Westbrook RF

    (1999) An infusion of bupivacaine into the nucleus accumbens disrupts the acquisition but not the expression of contextual fear conditioning

    Behavioral Neuroscience 113:925–940.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.113.5.925

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. Book

    1. Hays WL

    (1963)

    Statistics for Psychologists

    Red Global Press.

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Helmstetter FJ
    2. Bellgowan PS

    (1994) Effects of muscimol applied to the basolateral amygdala on acquisition and expression of contextual fear conditioning in rats

    Behavioral Neuroscience 108:1005–1009.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.108.5.1005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Hernandez PJ
    2. Abel T

    (2008) The role of protein synthesis in memory consolidation: progress amid decades of debate

    Neurobiology of learning and memory 89:293–311.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2007.09.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Holland PC

    (1981) Acquisition of representation-mediated conditioned food aversions

    Learning and Motivation 12:1–18.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0023-9690(81)90022-9

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Holland P

    (1998) Amount of training affects associatively-activated event representation

    Neuropharmacology 37:461–469.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3908(98)00038-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Holmes NM
    2. Parkes SL
    3. Killcross AS
    4. Westbrook RF

    (2013) The basolateral amygdala is critical for learning about neutral stimuli in the presence of danger, and the perirhinal cortex is critical in the absence of danger

    Journal of Neuroscience 33:1311213125.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1998-13.2013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Holmes NM
    2. Raipuria M
    3. Qureshi OA
    4. Killcross S
    5. Westbrook F

    (2018) Danger changes the way the mammalian brain stores information about innocuous events: a study of sensory preconditioning in rats

    eNeuro 5:ENEURO.0381-17.2017.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0381-17.2017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Holmes NM
    2. Westbrook RF

    (2017) A dangerous context changes the way that rats learn about and discriminate between innocuous events in sensory preconditioning

    Learning & memory 24:440–448.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.044297.116

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Johansen JP
    2. Cain CK
    3. Ostroff LE
    4. LeDoux JE

    (2011) Molecular mechanisms of fear learning and memory

    Cell 147:509–524.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.10.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Jones JL
    2. Esber GR
    3. McDannald MA
    4. Gruber AJ
    5. Hernandez A
    6. Mirenzi A
    7. Schoenbaum G

    (2012) Orbitofrontal cortex supports behavior and learning using inferred but not cached values

    Science 338:953–956.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1227489

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Kesner RP
    2. Partlow LM
    3. Bush LG
    4. Berman RF

    (1981) A quantitative regional analysis of protein synthesis inhibition in the rat brain following localized injection of cycloheximide

    Brain Research 209:159–176.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(81)91178-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Kleim JA
    2. Bruneau R
    3. Calder K
    4. Pocock D
    5. VandenBerg PM
    6. MacDonald E
    7. Monfils MH
    8. Sutherland RJ
    9. Nader K

    (2003) Functional organization of adult motor cortex is dependent upon continued protein synthesis

    Neuron 40:167–176.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00592-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. Book

    1. Konorski J

    (1967)

    Integrative Activity of the Brain: An Interdisciplinary Approach

    Chicago: University of Chicago.

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Lay BPP
    2. Westbrook RF
    3. Glanzman DL
    4. Holmes NM

    (2018) Commonalities and Differences in the Substrates Underlying Consolidation of First- and Second-Order Conditioned Fear

    Journal of Neuroscience 38:1926–1941.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2966-17.2018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Leidl DM
    2. Lay BPP
    3. Chakouch C
    4. Westbrook RF
    5. Holmes NM

    (2018) Protein synthesis in the basolateral amygdala complex is required for consolidation of a first-order fear memory, but not for consolidation of a higher-order fear memory

    Neurobiology of learning and memory 153:153–165.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2018.04.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Lopez J
    2. Gamache K
    3. Schneider R
    4. Nader K

    (2015) Memory retrieval requires ongoing protein synthesis and NMDA receptor activity-mediated AMPA receptor trafficking

    Journal of Neuroscience 35:2465–2475.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0735-14.2015

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Maren S
    2. Ferrario CR
    3. Corcoran KA
    4. Desmond TJ
    5. Frey KA

    (2003) Protein synthesis in the Amygdala, but not the auditory thalamus, is required for consolidation of pavlovian fear conditioning in rats

    European Journal of Neuroscience 18:3080–3088.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2003.03063.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Matus-Amat P
    2. Higgins EA
    3. Sprunger D
    4. Wright-Hardesty K
    5. Rudy JW

    (2007) The role of dorsal hippocampus and basolateral amygdala NMDA receptors in the acquisition and retrieval of context and contextual fear memories

    Behavioral neuroscience 121:721731.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.121.4.721

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. McGaugh JL
    2. McIntyre CK
    3. Power AE

    (2002) Amygdala modulation of memory consolidation: interaction with other brain systems

    Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 78:539–552.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/nlme.2002.4082

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Miserendino MJ
    2. Sananes CB
    3. Melia KR
    4. Davis M

    (1990) Blocking of acquisition but not expression of conditioned fear-potentiated startle by NMDA antagonists in the amygdala

    Nature 345:716–718.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/345716a0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Parkes SL
    2. Westbrook RF

    (2010) The basolateral amygdala is critical for the acquisition and extinction of associations between a neutral stimulus and a learned danger signal but not between two neutral stimuli

    Journal of Neuroscience 30:12608–12618.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2949-10.2010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. Book

    1. Paxinos G
    2. Watson C

    (2006)

    The Rat Brain in Stereotaxic Coordinates (Sixth Edition)

    Academic Press.

    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Phillips RG
    2. LeDoux JE

    (1995) Lesions of the fornix but not the entorhinal or perirhinal cortex interfere with contextual fear conditioning

    The Journal of Neuroscience 15:5308–5315.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.15-07-05308.1995

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Ramirez S
    2. Liu X
    3. Lin PA
    4. Suh J
    5. Pignatelli M
    6. Redondo RL
    7. Ryan TJ
    8. Tonegawa S

    (2013) Creating a false memory in the hippocampus

    Science 341:387–391.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239073

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Rizley RC
    2. Rescorla RA

    (1972) Associations in second-order conditioning and sensory preconditioning

    Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 81:1–11.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033333

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Romanski LM
    2. LeDoux JE

    (1992a) Bilateral destruction of neocortical and perirhinal projection targets of the acoustic thalamus does not disrupt auditory fear conditioning

    Neuroscience Letters 142:228–232.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3940(92)90379-L

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Romanski LM
    2. LeDoux JE

    (1992b) Equipotentiality of thalamo-amygdala and thalamo-cortico-amygdala circuits in auditory fear conditioning

    The Journal of Neuroscience 12:4501–4509.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.12-11-04501.1992

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Rudy JW
    2. O'Reilly RC

    (2001) Conjunctive representations, The Hippocampus, and contextual fear conditioning

    Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 1:66–82.

    https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.1.1.66

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Sadacca BF
    2. Wied HM
    3. Lopatina N
    4. Saini GK
    5. Nemirovsky D
    6. Schoenbaum G

    (2018) Orbitofrontal neurons signal sensory associations underlying model-based inference in a sensory preconditioning task

    eLife 7:e30373.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.30373

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Schafe GE
    2. LeDoux JE

    (2000) Memory consolidation of auditory pavlovian fear conditioning requires protein synthesis and protein kinase A in the amygdala

    The Journal of Neuroscience 20:RC96.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.20-18-j0003.2000

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Schlichting ML
    2. Preston AR

    (2015) Memory integration: neural mechanisms and implications for behavior

    Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 1:1–8.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2014.07.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Sharpe MJ
    2. Batchelor HM
    3. Schoenbaum G

    (2017) A preconditioned stimulus has no value

    eLife 6:e28362.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.28362

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Shohamy D
    2. Daw ND

    (2015) Integrating memories to guide decisions

    Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 5:85–90.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.08.010

    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Squire LR
    2. Stark CE
    3. Clark RE

    (2004) The medial temporal lobe

    Annual Review of Neuroscience 27:279–306.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144130

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Ward-Robinson J
    2. Hall G

    (1999) The role of mediated conditioning in acquired equivalence

    The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology B 52:335–350.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/027249999393031

    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Wilensky AE
    2. Schafe GE
    3. Kristensen MP
    4. LeDoux JE

    (2006) Rethinking the fear circuit: the central nucleus of the amygdala is required for the acquisition, consolidation, and expression of pavlovian fear conditioning

    Journal of Neuroscience 26:12387–12396.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4316-06.2006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Wolosin SM
    2. Zeithamova D
    3. Preston AR

    (2012) Reward modulation of hippocampal subfield activation during successful associative encoding and retrieval

    Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 24:1532–1547.

    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00237

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Zeithamova D
    2. Dominick AL
    3. Preston AR

    (2012) Hippocampal and ventral medial prefrontal activation during Retrieval-Mediated learning supports novel inference

    Neuron 75:168–179.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.05.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Francesca S Wong

   School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing—original draft

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8533-9833

2. R Fred Westbrook

   School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Nathan M Holmes

   School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing

   For correspondence

   n.holmes@unsw.edu.au

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0592-2026

• 1,825

  views

• 281

  downloads

• 39

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.