4.4 Article

Effects of the beta-blocker propranolol on cued and contextual fear conditioning in humans

期刊

PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 175, 期 3, 页码 342-352

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-004-1819-5

关键词

emotional memories; beta-adrenergic receptors; propranolol; fear conditioning; context conditioning; fear-potentiated startle; electrodermal activity

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [MH 59906, MH 52384, MH 57250, MH 47840] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale: Beta-adrenergic receptors are involved in the consolidation of emotional memories. Yet, a number of studies using Pavlovian cued fear conditioning have been unable to demonstrate an effect of beta-adrenergic blockade on acquisition or retention of fear conditioning. Evidence for the involvement of beta-adrenergic receptors in emotional memories comes mostly from studies using fear inhibitory avoidance in rodents. It is possible that fear inhibitory avoidance is more akin to contextual conditioning than to cued fear conditioning, suggesting that context conditioning may be disrupted by beta-adrenergic blockade. Objective: This study investigated the effects of the beta-adrenergic blocker propranolol on cued and contextual fear conditioning in humans. Methods: Subjects were given either placebo (n=15) or 40 mg propranolol (n=15) prior to differential cued conditioning. A week later, they were tested for retention of context and cued fear conditioning using physiological (startle reflex and electrodermal activity) and subjective measures of emotional arousal. Results: The results were consistent with the hypothesis. The skin conductance level (SCL) and the subjective measure of arousal suggested reduced emotional arousal upon returning to the conditioning context in the propranolol group, compared to the placebo group. The acquisition and retention of cued fear conditioning were not affected by propranolol. Conclusions: These results suggest that beta-adrenergic receptors are involved in contextual fear conditioning.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据