Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2013 Oct 29;113:165–173. doi: 10.1016/j.nlm.2013.10.014

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

US-expectancy ratings for the (A) No Retrieval group and (B) Retrieval group, during Extinction Training (EXT), Extinction Test (TEST), Re-extinction (RE-EXT), and Reinstatement Test (REIN). During Extinction Training, US-expectancy ratings to both CS+s (CS+a = reactivated cue; CS+b = non-reactivated cue) were equally diminished in the Retrieval and No Retrieval groups. During the Extinction Test, both Trial Types showed a significant increase in US-expectancy, when comparing US-expectancy ratings on the last trial of extinction (EXT6) and the first test trial (EXT1) for both CS+s. Next, analysis of US-expectancy on the first and last trial during Re-extinction revealed a significant decrease from RE-EXT1 to RE-EXT6. After Re-extinction, we tested for reinstatement effects on US-expectancy by comparing the last trial of Re-extinction to the first trial of the Reinstatement Test after the delivery of 4 unsignaled airblast USs. This analysis revealed a significant main effect of Reinstatement, as well as an interaction effect of with Retrieval group, in that the group that received the retrieval cue showed less of an increase in US-expectancy during Reinstatement compared to the group who did not get a reactivation cue. *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01.