Remembering the fear that arose during a dangerous experience is important as it teaches us to avoid similar circumstances in the future. The intensity of the initial experience will often influence the strength of the memory. Milder memories often lead to responses that protect individuals from harm (known as adaptive behaviors). However, stronger memories of more traumatic experiences can sometimes trigger disproportionate responses to a situation (known as maladaptive behaviors), such as in individuals with phobias or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Forming and retrieving fear memories requires different parts of the brain to work together and send signals to one another. At the core of this network is the amygdala (also known as the fear center of the brain), which other brain regions then feed into to modulate the fear response to ensure it is appropriate and manageable. However, it remained unclear whether neurons in these brain regions wire together differently when recalling mild or more severe fear memories. Identifying these differences may help explain why certain fear memories lead to adaptive behaviors, while others result in maladaptive ones.

To investigate this question, Haubrich and Nader generated fear memories in rats that triggered either mild fear responses or strong responses akin to trauma. Imaging tools were then used to measure the activity and connections between neurons across 12 regions of the brain known to be involved in remembering fearful experiences.

This revealed that recalling mild fear memories resulted in a well-coordinated network of neurons which could effectively send information between the different brain regions. In contrast, severe fear memories led to disrupted overall connectivity, with the amygdala becoming disconnected from the other brain regions.

The results reveal stark contrasts in the pattern of neuronal connections formed by mild and severe fear memories. Investigating the specific pathways involved in these differences will allow scientists to gain a better understanding of why memories of traumatic experiences can lead to maladaptive behaviors, including those formed as a result of PTSD.

Whether a fear memory leads to adaptive or maladaptive behavior can be determined by the intensity of the initial aversive experience. A deeper understanding of fear memory requires identifying changes in the neural mechanisms engaged by fear memories of varying levels of aversiveness. Research on rodent fear conditioning has been mostly conducted in mild protocols and comparisons with strong protocols are scarce. While this approach advances our understanding of normal fear memories, it leaves open questions about specific mechanisms in disorders of fear dysregulation, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Flores et al., 2018).

Normal fear memories are critical to survival. These memories trigger appropriate responses that are cue-specific and can be attenuated by extinction (Fanselow, 2018; Homan et al., 2019; Alexandra Kredlow et al., 2022). These adaptive representations are flexible and their content may be updated upon recall through reconsolidation (Arellano Pérez et al., 2020; Forcato et al., 2010; Haubrich et al., 2015; Monfils et al., 2009). Importantly, these fear memories can be disrupted by pharmacological interventions targeting their reconsolidation (Haubrich et al., 2020a; Haubrich et al., 2017; Nader et al., 2000; Pigeon et al., 2022), offering a wealth of clinical possibilities (Phelps and Hofmann, 2019). However, severe aversive events can lead to the formation of strong, maladaptive fear memories that trigger disproportionate and generalized fear responses (Baldi et al., 2004; Corchs and Schiller, 2019; Morey et al., 2015) and tend to be resistant to extinction (Sangha et al., 2020) and to undergo reconsolidation (Haubrich and Nader, 2018a; Holehonnur et al., 2016; Kindt, 2018; Wang et al., 2009).

The formation and expression of fear memories are believed to rely on the coordinated activity of a network of brain structures. The amygdala is an integral structure in all aspects of fear memory formation and expression (Sears et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2021). Subsequent to severe fear learning, it has been shown that changes take place in the composition of glutamate receptors in the amygdala that are linked to maladaptive memories (Holehonnur et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2009; Conoscenti et al., 2022; Haubrich et al., 2020b). In the case of contextual fear memories, the involvement of the hippocampus also becomes critical given its role in the processing of context-related information (Frankland et al., 2019; Suzuki et al., 2004; Topolnik and Tamboli, 2022). Other regions, such as the retrosplenial, infralimbic, prelimbic, and cingulate cortices, and the reuniens and paraventricular nuclei of the thalamus, also play important roles in modulating fear memories (Alexandra Kredlow et al., 2022; Barchiesi et al., 2022; de Oliveira Alvares and Do-Monte, 2021; Levy and Schiller, 2021; Milton, 2019). Importantly, the action of stress hormones and the locus coeruleus-noradrenaline system plays a key role in the formation of maladaptive-like fear memories (Haubrich et al., 2020b; Dębiec et al., 2011; Gazarini et al., 2014). It is not clear how the coordinated activity between these regions changes with the severity of fear memories but basic and clinical findings suggest it may be dysregulated (Ressler et al., 2022).

The distinctions between adaptive and maladaptive memories may not be solely attributed to changes within isolated structures or altered connectivity between pairs of structures, but rather to collective changes across multiple structures within the neural network. Combining the quantification of immediate-early genes expression linked to neural activation such as c-fos (Terstege and Epp, 2023) and network-based graph analysis (Bassett et al., 2018; Bullmore and Sporns, 2009; Roland et al., 2023), it is possible to reveal the brain functional connectivity during active cognitive experiences, such as memory recall (Silva et al., 2019; Takeuchi et al., 2022; Vetere et al., 2017; Wheeler et al., 2013). In network models of neural systems, brain regions are represented as nodes, and functional connections between nodes are represented as edges. Multiple measures can be computed to inform the relationship between nodes and the global characteristics of the network, which can elucidate changes in information processing across different conditions.

In this study, we aimed to shed light on the system mechanisms underlying the recall of mild and strong fear memories. First, we established the behavioral differences triggered by fear conditioning protocols of varying intensities. We then employed c-fos immunohistochemistry to measure brain activation in 12 brain areas critical for fear learning and memory during the recall of mild and strong fear. Subsequently, the interregional coordinated brain activity was computed and functional networks were generated. Our findings indicate that the system mechanisms of fear memories vary based on their intensity as a mild fear recall is supported by a well-connected network while the recall of strong fear is associated with disruptions in network connectivity.

This study investigated how functional connectivity during fear memory recall varies depending on fear memory intensity. Utilizing mild and strong fear protocols, we were able to generate memories that exhibit remarkable differences in their behavioral and neuronal signatures. Specifically, we found that mild memories triggered moderate and precise behavioral responses that were susceptible to extinction and reconsolidation, while strong memories triggered robust and generalized responses and were resistant to both extinction and reconsolidation. When comparing the brain activity across 12 regions implicated in fear memory, we found that recall resulted in changes in overall activity in only a subset of these regions. However, when we examined coordinated activity patterns, we discovered striking differences in the functional networks that underlie mild and strong fear memory recall. Mild memories displayed a well-connected network with the amygdala, which was well-positioned to interact with and be influenced by several regions. However, such connectivity was absent in the strong fear memory network, which may underlie the observed high and generalized fear responses that are resistant to attenuation. These findings suggest that abnormal functional connectivity may be a core factor in maladaptive, severe fear memories.

To study brain differences between mild and strong fear memories, we used conditioning protocols of different intensities that generated fear memories remarkably differently at the behavioral level. Conditioning with 2 shocks resulted in a fear memory eliciting mild and discriminative fear responses, which could be attenuated by extinction, and its recall triggered reconsolidation. In contrast, a 10-foot shock training generated a strong fear memory that can be seen as maladaptive; it elicited high and generalized fear expression, which was resistant to undergo both extinction and reconsolidation. Importantly, our control animals were exposed to the conditioning chamber for an equivalent duration without being subjected to shocks, thus encoding and recalling a nonfearful contextual memory (Figure 1). The recall of these distinct memories resulted in differential brain activation in some structures. In line with the role of the amygdala (Bernabo et al., 2021; Gründemann et al., 2019; Josselyn et al., 2015; Maddox et al., 2019) and paraventricular nucleus (Do-Monte et al., 2015b; Padilla-Coreano et al., 2012) in fear expression, we observed that c-fos counts in these structures increased as a function of the strength of the fear memory. Conversely, in the infralimbic cortex, c-fos expression was decreased in the 10S group, which is in line with its established role in safety learning and fear suppression (Bloodgood et al., 2018; Do-Monte et al., 2015a). Adding to the known involvement of the RSC (Todd et al., 2019; Trask et al., 2021) and the Re (Ramanathan et al., 2018; Sierra et al., 2017; Troyner et al., 2018) in modulating fear memory formation and expression, our results revealed neural activity in these structures was increased during mild memory recall, but not during strong memory recall, when compared to unshocked controls. Although the hippocampus (Gründemann et al., 2019; Josselyn et al., 2015; Guo et al., 2018; Haubrich and Nader, 2018b; Pedraza et al., 2016), prelimbic (da Silva et al., 2020; Dixsaut and Gräff, 2022; Fernandez-Leon et al., 2021), and cingulate cortex (Finnie et al., 2018; Haubrich et al., 2016; Ortiz et al., 2019) are critical to contextual fear memory-related processes, we found no differences in their activation between groups, suggesting that the role of these structures in modulating the expression of fear of different intensities may not reflect in changes in overall activation levels.

The amygdala is a central hub for the processing of fear memory and fear expression during recall. It receives input from sensory areas and integrates this information with several other brain regions, such as the hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex, to generate adaptive fear responses. The projections to the amygdala from these regions modulate the intensity of fear responses, extinction learning, and the induction of reconsolidation. Consequently, the functional connectivity of the amygdala within a memory network plays a crucial role in determining the level of fear expression. Our initial assessment of mean coordinated activity supports this concept. We found that, in comparison with unconditioned controls, the overall correlation values of the amygdala with other brain regions increase during the recall of a mild fear memory, but not during the recall of a strong fear memory.

The functional networks analysis further evaluated the system-level interactions of different brain regions during the recall of mild and severe fear memories. Centrality measures were computed to assess the number of functional connections, hub nodes, and information flow throughout the network. These measures were increased during the recall of mild fear memories compared to untrained controls, and such an increase was not observed during the recall of strong fear memories. Moreover, only the mild fear memory network displayed a small-world organization, which allows for both specialized and efficient information processing in the network. These findings suggest that the expression of moderate and flexible fear memories involves an efficient, integrated activation of specific brain regions, which is not present in the recall of strong fear memories.

Importantly, both the basolateral and the central amygdala ranked high across the centrality measures assessed. Of particular importance is the high nodal efficiency ranking of the amygdala, indicating that it was a main central mediator of information flow throughout the network. Notably, the infralimbic cortex, a region known to suppress fear responses by sending inhibitory projections to the amygdala (Bouton et al., 2021), displayed the highest betweenness centrality during mild memory recall. However, during the recall of severe fear memory, the amygdala displayed a considerably lower ranking across centrality measures, similar to what was observed in control unconditioned animals. These changes in the network-level integration of the amygdala are apparent in the model depicted in Figure 4F. In the 2S graph, the amygdala is at the center of a fully connected network and the IL is a critical bridge connecting the amygdalar module to the one containing the hippocampus and the retrosplenial cortex. In contrast, in the 10S graph, the amygdala is disconnected from the other regions. This indicates that the differences observed behaviorally during severe fear memory recall – high and generalized freezing and resistance to attenuation – coincided with a disruption in the functional connectivity of the amygdala with other regions that are important for regulating fear. To further elucidate the underlying mechanisms of fear memory strength in vivo, understanding the specific roles of individual network elements in fear regulation becomes essential. Future research will be important to probe the causal interplay among distinct nodes and edges, both individually and in combination, in shaping diverse aspects of fear expression.

To generate mild and strong fear memories, we based our conditioning parameters on methods that have shown distinct behavioral outcomes in prior studies (Holehonnur et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2009; Poulos et al., 2016). To ensure a focused comparative analysis, our conditioning protocols differed only in the number of foot shocks and maintained consistent shock intensities and session durations. Yet, the number of shocks is not the only factor that can affect the strength of fear memories (Gazarini et al., 2023). Other conditioning parameters, such as shock intensity, its predictability, and inter-shock intervals, can also play crucial roles. Moreover, different fear measures like freezing behavior, fear-potentiated startle, and inhibitory avoidance might manifest differently following varying conditioning protocols, adding another layer of complexity. A comprehensive understanding of fear memory strength will benefit from further studies scrutinizing these parameters and memory attributes. In addition, a growing body of evidence underscores the differences between males and females concerning fear memories (Fleischer and Frick, 2023). Given that our study was conducted only with male rats, future studies exploring sex differences will be instrumental in providing a more complete account of the network-level mechanisms underlying fear memory strength.

In summary, this study investigated the behavioral and neural differences during the recall of memories with varying levels of aversiveness. In contrast to memories formed with a 2-shock fear conditioning protocol, 10 shocks generate maladaptive memories with intense and generalized fear responses, resistance to extinction, and an inability to flexibly change through reconsolidation. The recall of these memories resulted in changes in brain activation across some, but not all, regions where c-fos was measured. Graph-based network analysis uncovered that moderate and flexible fear memory expression involves an efficient integrated activation of particular brain regions, which is absent in strong fear memories. These results provide a deeper understanding of fear memory by showing that functional connectivity during recall varies greatly depending on the level of aversiveness of the memory. It supports the notion that not only local synaptic mechanisms but also broader functional changes play a role in shaping fear memory strength. Moreover, these findings highlight the importance of studying the neural mechanisms involved with fear memory strength, as they may provide insight into the development of maladaptive memories and potential interventions for their treatment.

All data generated and analyzed during this study are available at https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.280gb5mw3.

1. 1. Haubrich J
   2. Nader K

   (2023) Dryad Digital Repository

   Network-level changes in the brain underlie fear memory strength.

   https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.280gb5mw3

1. 1. Alexandra Kredlow M
   2. Fenster RJ
   3. Laurent ES
   4. Ressler KJ
   5. Phelps EA

   (2022) Prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and threat processing: implications for PTSD

   Neuropsychopharmacology 47:247–259.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-021-01155-7

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Arellano Pérez AD
   2. Popik B
   3. de Oliveira Alvares L

   (2020) Rewarding information presented during reactivation attenuates fear memory: Methylphenidate and fear memory updating

   Neuropharmacology 171:108107.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2020.108107

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Baldi E
   2. Lorenzini CA
   3. Bucherelli C

   (2004) Footshock intensity and generalization in contextual and auditory-cued fear conditioning in the rat

   Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 81:162–166.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2004.02.004

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Barchiesi R
   2. Chanthongdee K
   3. Petrella M
   4. Xu L
   5. Söderholm S
   6. Domi E
   7. Augier G
   8. Coppola A
   9. Wiskerke J
   10. Szczot I
   11. Domi A
   12. Adermark L
   13. Augier E
   14. Cantù C
   15. Heilig M
   16. Barbier E

   (2022) An epigenetic mechanism for over-consolidation of fear memories

   Molecular Psychiatry 27:4893–4904.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-022-01758-6

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Barrat A
   2. Barthélemy M
   3. Pastor-Satorras R
   4. Vespignani A

   (2004) The architecture of complex weighted networks

   PNAS 101:3747–3752.

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0400087101

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Bassett DS
   2. Zurn P
   3. Gold JI

   (2018) On the nature and use of models in network neuroscience

   Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 19:566–578.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-018-0038-8

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Bernabo M
   2. Haubrich J
   3. Gamache K
   4. Nader K

   (2021) Memory destabilization and reconsolidation dynamically regulate the PKMζ maintenance Mechanism

   The Journal of Neuroscience 41:4880–4888.

   https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2093-20.2021

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Bloodgood DW
   2. Sugam JA
   3. Holmes A
   4. Kash TL

   (2018) Fear extinction requires infralimbic cortex projections to the basolateral amygdala

   Translational Psychiatry 8:60.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-018-0106-x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Bouton ME
   2. Maren S
   3. McNally GP

   (2021) Behavioral and neurobiological mechanisms of pavlovian and instrumental extinction learning

   Physiological Reviews 101:611–681.

   https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00016.2020

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Bullmore E
    2. Sporns O

    (2009) Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 10:186–198.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2575

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Conoscenti MA
    2. Smith NJ
    3. Fanselow MS

    (2022) Dissociable consequences of moderate and high volume stress are mediated by the differential energetic demands of stress

    PLOS ONE 17:e0273803.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273803

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Corchs F
    2. Schiller D

    (2019) Threat-related disorders as persistent motivational states of defense

    Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 26:62–68.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.10.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. da Silva TR
    2. Raymundi AM
    3. Bertoglio LJ
    4. Andreatini R
    5. Stern CA

    (2020) Role of prelimbic cortex PKC and PKMζ in fear memory reconsolidation and persistence following reactivation

    Scientific Reports 10:4076.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60046-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Dębiec J
    2. Bush DEA
    3. LeDoux JE

    (2011) Noradrenergic enhancement of reconsolidation in the amygdala impairs extinction of conditioned fear in rats--a possible mechanism for the persistence of traumatic memories in PTSD

    Depression and Anxiety 28:186–193.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/da.20803

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. de Oliveira Alvares L
    2. Do-Monte FH

    (2021) Understanding the dynamic and destiny of memories

    Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 125:592–607.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.03.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Dixsaut L
    2. Gräff J

    (2022) Brain-wide screen of prelimbic cortex inputs reveals a functional shift during early fear memory consolidation

    eLife 11:e78542.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78542

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Do-Monte FH
    2. Manzano-Nieves G
    3. Quiñones-Laracuente K
    4. Ramos-Medina L
    5. Quirk GJ

    (2015a) Revisiting the role of infralimbic cortex in fear extinction with optogenetics

    The Journal of Neuroscience 35:3607–3615.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3137-14.2015

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Do-Monte FH
    2. Quiñones-Laracuente K
    3. Quirk GJ

    (2015b) A temporal shift in the circuits mediating retrieval of fear memory

    Nature 519:460–463.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14030

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Fanselow MS

    (2018) The role of learning in threat imminence and defensive behaviors

    Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 24:44–49.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.03.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Fernandez-Leon JA
    2. Engelke DS
    3. Aquino-Miranda G
    4. Goodson A
    5. Rasheed MN
    6. Do Monte FH

    (2021) Neural correlates and determinants of approach-avoidance conflict in the prelimbic prefrontal cortex

    eLife 10:e74950.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.74950

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Finnie PSB
    2. Gamache K
    3. Protopoulos M
    4. Sinclair E
    5. Baker AG
    6. Wang SH
    7. Nader K

    (2018) Cortico-hippocampal schemas enable NMDAR-Independent fear conditioning in Rats

    Current Biology 28:2900–2909.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.07.037

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Fleischer AW
    2. Frick KM

    (2023) New perspectives on sex differences in learning and memory

    Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism 34:526–538.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tem.2023.06.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Flores Á
    2. Fullana MÀ
    3. Soriano-Mas C
    4. Andero R

    (2018) Lost in translation: how to upgrade fear memory research

    Molecular Psychiatry 23:2122–2132.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-017-0006-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Forcato C
    2. Rodríguez MLC
    3. Pedreira ME
    4. Maldonado H

    (2010) Reconsolidation in humans opens up declarative memory to the entrance of new information

    Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 93:77–84.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2009.08.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Frankland PW
    2. Josselyn SA
    3. Köhler S

    (2019) The neurobiological foundation of memory retrieval

    Nature Neuroscience 22:1576–1585.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-019-0493-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Gazarini L
    2. Stern CAJ
    3. Piornedo RR
    4. Takahashi RN
    5. Bertoglio LJ

    (2014) PTSD-like memory generated through enhanced noradrenergic activity is mitigated by a dual step pharmacological intervention targeting its reconsolidation

    The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology 18:pyu026.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijnp/pyu026

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Gazarini L
    2. Stern CAJ
    3. Bertoglio LJ

    (2023) On making (and turning adaptive to) maladaptive aversive memories in laboratory rodents

    Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 147:105101.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105101

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Gründemann J
    2. Bitterman Y
    3. Lu T
    4. Krabbe S
    5. Grewe BF
    6. Schnitzer MJ
    7. Lüthi A

    (2019) Amygdala ensembles encode behavioral states

    Science 364:eaav8736.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav8736

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Guo N
    2. Soden ME
    3. Herber C
    4. Kim MT
    5. Besnard A
    6. Lin P
    7. Ma X
    8. Cepko CL
    9. Zweifel LS
    10. Sahay A

    (2018) Dentate granule cell recruitment of feedforward inhibition governs engram maintenance and remote memory generalization

    Nature Medicine 24:438–449.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.4491

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Haubrich J
    2. Crestani AP
    3. Cassini LF
    4. Santana F
    5. Sierra RO
    6. Alvares LDO
    7. Quillfeldt JA

    (2015) Reconsolidation allows fear memory to be updated to a less aversive level through the incorporation of appetitive information

    Neuropsychopharmacology 40:315–326.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2014.174

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Haubrich J
    2. Cassini LF
    3. Diehl F
    4. Santana F
    5. Fürstenau de Oliveira L
    6. de Oliveira Alvares L
    7. Quillfeldt JA

    (2016) Novel learning accelerates systems consolidation of a contextual fear memory

    Hippocampus 26:924–932.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22575

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Haubrich J
    2. Machado A
    3. Boos FZ
    4. Crestani AP
    5. Sierra RO
    6. Alvares LDO
    7. Quillfeldt JA

    (2017) Enhancement of extinction memory by pharmacological and behavioral interventions targeted to its reactivation

    Scientific Reports 7:10960.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-11261-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. Book

    1. Haubrich J
    2. Nader K

    (2018a) Behavioral Neuroscience of learning and memory

    In: Clark RE, Martin SJ, editors. Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 1–26.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78757-2

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Haubrich J
    2. Nader K

    (2018b) A molecular mechanism governing memory precision

    Nature Medicine 24:390–391.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.4532

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Haubrich J
    2. Bernabo M
    3. Baker AG
    4. Nader K

    (2020a) Impairments to consolidation, reconsolidation, and long-term memory maintenance lead to memory erasure

    Annual Review of Neuroscience 43:297–314.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-091319-024636

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Haubrich J
    2. Bernabo M
    3. Nader K

    (2020b) Noradrenergic projections from the locus coeruleus to the amygdala constrain fear memory reconsolidation

    eLife 9:e57010.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.57010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. Software

    1. Haubrich J

    (2023) Functional network analysis, version swh:1:rev:f51289142aeed82ed260090353010bbe966d0455

    Software Heritage.

    https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:4df4e8694130183c0d908f4a5903ea97deb9a078;origin=https://github.com/johaubrich/Networks;visit=swh:1:snp:b39e598a7685714599633a70a15ed6118a93dd88;anchor=swh:1:rev:f51289142aeed82ed260090353010bbe966d0455
38. 1. Holehonnur R
    2. Phensy AJ
    3. Kim LJ
    4. Milivojevic M
    5. Vuong D
    6. Daison DK
    7. Alex S
    8. Tiner M
    9. Jones LE
    10. Kroener S
    11. Ploski JE

    (2016) Increasing the GluN2A/GluN2B Ratio in Neurons of the Mouse basal and lateral Amygdala inhibits the modification of an existing fear memory trace

    The Journal of Neuroscience 36:9490–9504.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1743-16.2016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Homan P
    2. Levy I
    3. Feltham E
    4. Gordon C
    5. Hu J
    6. Li J
    7. Pietrzak RH
    8. Southwick S
    9. Krystal JH
    10. Harpaz-Rotem I
    11. Schiller D

    (2019) Author Correction: Neural computations of threat in the aftermath of combat trauma

    Nature Neuroscience 22:840–841.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-019-0356-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Josselyn SA
    2. Köhler S
    3. Frankland PW

    (2015) Finding the engram

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 16:521–534.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn4000

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Kindt M

    (2018) The surprising subtleties of changing fear memory: a challenge for translational science

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 373:20170033.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0033

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Levy I
    2. Schiller D

    (2021) Neural Computations of Threat

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 25:151–171.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.11.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Maddox SA
    2. Hartmann J
    3. Ross RA
    4. Ressler KJ

    (2019) Deconstructing the gestalt: mechanisms of fear, threat, and trauma memory encoding

    Neuron 102:60–74.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.03.017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Milton AL

    (2019) Fear not: recent advances in understanding the neural basis of fear memories and implications for treatment development

    F1000Research 8:F1000 Faculty Rev-1948.

    https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.20053.1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Monfils MHH
    2. Cowansage KK
    3. Klann E
    4. LeDoux JE

    (2009) Extinction-reconsolidation boundaries: key to persistent attenuation of fear memories

    Science 324:951–955.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1167975

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Morey RA
    2. Dunsmoor JE
    3. Haswell CC
    4. Brown VM
    5. Vora A
    6. Weiner J
    7. Stjepanovic D
    8. Wagner HR
    9. VA Mid-Atlantic MIRECC Workgroup
    10. LaBar KS

    (2015) Fear learning circuitry is biased toward generalization of fear associations in posttraumatic stress disorder

    Translational Psychiatry 5:e700.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/tp.2015.196

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Nader K
    2. Schafe GE
    3. Le Doux JE

    (2000) Fear memories require protein synthesis in the amygdala for reconsolidation after retrieval

    Nature 406:722–726.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/35021052

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Newman MEJ

    (2006) Finding community structure in networks using the eigenvectors of matrices

    Physical Review. E, Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 74:036104.

    https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.74.036104

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Ortiz S
    2. Latsko MS
    3. Fouty JL
    4. Dutta S
    5. Adkins JM
    6. Jasnow AM

    (2019) Anterior cingulate cortex and ventral hippocampal inputs to the basolateral amygdala selectively control generalized fear

    The Journal of Neuroscience 39:6526–6539.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0810-19.2019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Padilla-Coreano N
    2. Do-Monte FH
    3. Quirk GJ

    (2012) A time-dependent role of midline thalamic nuclei in the retrieval of fear memory

    Neuropharmacology 62:457–463.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2011.08.037

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Pedraza LK
    2. Sierra RO
    3. Boos FZ
    4. Haubrich J
    5. Quillfeldt JA
    6. de Oliveira Alvares L

    (2016) The dynamic nature of systems consolidation: Stress during learning as a switch guiding the rate of the hippocampal dependency and memory quality

    Hippocampus 26:362–371.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22527

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Phelps EA
    2. Hofmann SG

    (2019) Memory editing from science fiction to clinical practice

    Nature 572:43–50.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1433-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Pigeon S
    2. Lonergan M
    3. Rotondo O
    4. Pitman RK
    5. Brunet A

    (2022) Impairing memory reconsolidation with propranolol in healthy and clinical samples: a meta-analysis

    Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience 47:E109–E122.

    https://doi.org/10.1503/jpn.210057

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Poulos AM
    2. Mehta N
    3. Lu B
    4. Amir D
    5. Livingston B
    6. Santarelli A
    7. Zhuravka I
    8. Fanselow MS

    (2016) Conditioning- and time-dependent increases in context fear and generalization

    Learning & Memory 23:379–385.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.041400.115

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Ramanathan KR
    2. Jin J
    3. Giustino TF
    4. Payne MR
    5. Maren S

    (2018) Prefrontal projections to the thalamic nucleus reuniens mediate fear extinction

    Nature Communications 9:4527.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06970-z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Ressler K
    2. Berretta S
    3. Bolshakov VY
    4. Rosso IM
    5. Meloni EG
    6. Rauch SL
    7. Carlezon WA

    (2022) Post-traumatic stress disorder: clinical and translational neuroscience from cells to circuits

    Nature Reviews. Neurology 18:273–288.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-022-00635-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Roland AV
    2. Coelho CAO
    3. Haun HL
    4. Gianessi CA
    5. Lopez MF
    6. D’Ambrosio S
    7. Machinski SN
    8. Kroenke CD
    9. Frankland PW
    10. Becker HC
    11. Kash TL

    (2023) Alcohol dependence modifies Brain Networks activated during withdrawal and reaccess: a c-Fos-Based analysis in Mice

    Biological Psychiatry 94:393–404.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2023.01.018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Sangha S
    2. Diehl MM
    3. Bergstrom HC
    4. Drew MR

    (2020) Know safety, no fear

    Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 108:218–230.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.11.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Sears RM
    2. Schiff HC
    3. LeDoux JE

    (2014) Molecular mechanisms of threat learning in the lateral nucleus of the amygdala

    Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science 122:263–304.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-420170-5.00010-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Sierra RO
    2. Pedraza LK
    3. Zanona QK
    4. Santana F
    5. Boos FZ
    6. Crestani AP
    7. Haubrich J
    8. de Oliveira Alvares L
    9. Calcagnotto ME
    10. Quillfeldt JA

    (2017) Reconsolidation-induced rescue of a remote fear memory blocked by an early cortical inhibition: Involvement of the anterior cingulate cortex and the mediation by the thalamic nucleus reuniens

    Hippocampus 27:596–607.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22715

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Silva BA
    2. Burns AM
    3. Gräff J

    (2019) A cFos activation map of remote fear memory attenuation

    Psychopharmacology 236:369–381.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-018-5000-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Suzuki A
    2. Josselyn SA
    3. Frankland PW
    4. Masushige S
    5. Silva AJ
    6. Kida S

    (2004) Memory reconsolidation and extinction have distinct temporal and biochemical signatures

    The Journal of Neuroscience 24:4787–4795.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5491-03.2004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Takeuchi T
    2. Tamura M
    3. Tse D
    4. Kajii Y
    5. Fernández G
    6. Morris RGM

    (2022) Brain region networks for the assimilation of new associative memory into a schema

    Molecular Brain 15:24.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13041-022-00908-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Terstege DJ
    2. Epp JR

    (2023) Network neuroscience untethered: brain-wide immediate early gene expression for the analysis of functional connectivity in freely behaving animals

    Biology 12:34.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12010034

    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Todd TP
    2. Fournier DI
    3. Bucci DJ

    (2019) Retrosplenial cortex and its role in cue-specific learning and memory

    Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 107:713–728.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.04.016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Topolnik L
    2. Tamboli S

    (2022) The role of inhibitory circuits in hippocampal memory processing

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 23:476–492.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-022-00599-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Trask S
    2. Ferrara NC
    3. Jasnow AM
    4. Kwapis JL

    (2021) Contributions of the rodent cingulate-retrosplenial cortical axis to associative learning and memory: A proposed circuit for persistent memory maintenance

    Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 130:178–184.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.08.023

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Troyner F
    2. Bicca MA
    3. Bertoglio LJ

    (2018) Nucleus reuniens of the thalamus controls fear memory intensity, specificity and long-term maintenance during consolidation

    Hippocampus 28:602–616.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22964

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Vetere G
    2. Kenney JW
    3. Tran LM
    4. Xia F
    5. Steadman PE
    6. Parkinson J
    7. Josselyn SA
    8. Frankland PW

    (2017) Chemogenetic interrogation of a brain-wide fear memory network in mice

    Neuron 94:363–374.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2017.03.037

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Wang S-H
    2. de Oliveira Alvares L
    3. Nader K

    (2009) Cellular and systems mechanisms of memory strength as a constraint on auditory fear reconsolidation

    Nature Neuroscience 12:905–912.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2350

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Watts DJ
    2. Strogatz SH

    (1998) Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks

    Nature 393:440–442.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/30918

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Wheeler AL
    2. Teixeira CM
    3. Wang AH
    4. Xiong X
    5. Kovacevic N
    6. Lerch JP
    7. McIntosh AR
    8. Parkinson J
    9. Frankland PW

    (2013) Identification of a functional connectome for long-term fear memory in mice

    PLOS Computational Biology 9:e1002853.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002853

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Zhang WH
    2. Zhang JY
    3. Holmes A
    4. Pan BX

    (2021) Amygdala circuit substrates for stress adaptation and adversity

    Biological Psychiatry 89:847–856.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.12.026

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Josue Haubrich

   1. Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montréal, Canada
   2. Department of Neurophysiology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   Josue.Haubrich@ruhr-uni-bochum.de

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3632-5566

2. Karim Nader

   Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montréal, Canada

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

• 1,456

  views

• 176

  downloads

• 9

  citations

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