Neural adaptation of cingulate and insular activity during delayed fear extinction: A replicable pattern across assessment sites and repeated measurements

1. Introduction

Extinction training is a procedure during which an individual learns to inhibit a previously conditioned response to a fear conditioned stimulus (Lonsdorf et al., 2017). It is neither forgetting nor “unlearning” (Vervliet et al., 2013) but a new learning process that (if successful) competes with a previously established stimulus-reaction relation. Extinction learning is adaptive adjusting one’s reactions to changing circumstances and learning that a prior threat signal no longer indicates danger is particularly evolutionary vital.

Extinction learning as a re-evaluation of threat prediction is limited in patients with anxiety disorders (Duits et al., 2015), that affect up to 25% of the general population worldwide (Remes et al., 2016) and cause substantial individual and societal burden (Gustavsson et al., 2011; Wittchen et al., 2011). Currently the most effective treatment of anxiety disorders is exposure-based cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) (Bandelow et al., 2014; National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), 2011, 2013). Extinction learning is suggested to be one central process of fear reduction in exposure-based CBT (Milad & Quirk, 2012; Vervliet et al., 2013; Heinig et al., 2017; Richter et al., 2017). During exposure sessions, patients are confronted repeatedly with those situations that evoke their pathological anxieties and patients re-learn that these “threat” signals do not indicate actual danger, which over time and repetition reduces pathological fear responses.

In the experimental laboratory model, the effects of fear extinction training are investigated subsequently to fear acquisition training in which a neutral stimulus (conditioned stimulus, CS) is repeatedly paired with an aversive stimulus (unconditioned stimulus, US) (Pavlov, 1927; Maren, 2001). The CS is learned as a threat signal (CS+, predicts US). Eventually, the CS+ alone evokes defensive reactions (Fullana et al., 2016; Lonsdorf et al., 2017; Sehlmeyer et al., 2009; Wendt et al., 2017; Heinig et al., 2017; Maren 2001). During extinction training however, the CS+ is repeatedly presented without the US. Consequently, a new inhibitory memory trace that inhibits the excitatory memory trace developed through acquisition is formed (CS+ predicts no US) (Lonsdorf et al., 2017). In that way, the initial association competes with the new, actively learned association (Graham, 2001; Milad & Quirk, 2012; Heinig et al., 2017). Depending on the quality and strength of the initial excitatory and the new inhibitory associations, fear memories can be retrieved even after successful extinction training (Bouton, 2004; Lonsdorf et al., 2017). This fast return of fear during mere presentations of the US after extinction training is known as reinstatement of fear (Hermans et al., 2006).

A recent meta-analysis on neural correlates of fear extinction training in healthy adults by Fullana et al. (2018; 31 studies with 1074 participants in total) concluded that extinction training activates the brain in a pattern that is reminiscent of fear acquisition (the cortical fore-brain, e.g. anterior cingulate cortex, the insula, limbic and mid-brain structures; Carvalho et al., 2010; Fanselow 1994; Mobbs et al., 2009; Wendt et al., 2017; Lueken et al., 2013; Sehlmeyer et al., 2011). The authors analyzed studies using uninstructed fear conditioning in differential cue-conditioning paradigms (i.e., a CS+ and a CS– are presented; the CS+ precedes the US) with a 31-100% (average: 69%) US-reinforcement rate and immediate uninstructed extinction training. The vast majority (60%) of these studies used electric stimulation as US, 20% used aversive noises. Fullana et al. (2018) confirmed the following brain regions to consistently show increased BOLD activation during extinction training in the overall CS+ > CS-comparison: the rostro-dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, medial prefrontal cortex, bilateral anterior insular cortex, frontal operculum, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anterior putamen, bilateral ventral pallidum, anterior and medial thalamus, and mid-brain/dorsal pons.

Still missing, though of great importance, is evidence regarding the trajectories of changes in neural activation during the process of extinction training. In general, previous studies focused on neural correlates of conditioned stimuli (CS+, CS-) and their difference contrast during the whole training procedure, but not on the changes of neural activation in its course. Due to their methodology of averaging multiple trials for a condition fMRI studies did not prioritize the analysis of activation change trajectories during extinction. However, the neural trajectory may contain important additional information about individual learning types that could be beneficial for subtyping patients for treatment strategies. Schwarzmeier et al. (2019) e.g. found evidence for the importance of neural trajectories in accelerated acquisition of conditioned responses and attenuated extinction recall during delayed extinction training in patients with panic disorder, compared to healthy control subjects. Since extinction processes depend on learning competing information to well established CS+/US associations, changes over time are rather subtle and extinction learning is a fragile phenomenon (Bouton, 2002; Giustino and Maren, 2015). Nevertheless, gathering process information over time in a suitable experiment is necessary to better understand extinction mechanisms and to disentangle the initial recall of a conditioned fear memory from the progressive formation of the extinction memory (Lonsdorf et al., 2017). In general, these insights would provide a solid basis to inform and optimize exposure-based CBT.

Therefore, we developed an optimized protocol of extinction training that closely models the conditions and processes of exposure therapy as described in our pilot study (Hollandt et al. 2020). As a delayed extinction paradigm, it models well-consolidated fear memories and includes a reinstatement test, which simulates the relapse of fear symptoms in clinical context. We were able to show the general feasibility of delayed fear extinction training in the fMRI in 16 healthy students regarding the general CS+ > CS-comparisons (Hollandt et al., 2020). Open questions however remain regarding the changes in neural activation across the experimental phases and stability of extinction training effects across repeated measurements and across different investigation sites. A given re-test stability across different study sites would be an important pre-condition for using the paradigm to investigate treatment associated changes in fear extinction capacities in clinical populations within multi-centric treatment trials.

Goals of the present study were 1) investigating fear-extinction processes during the course of an extinction training at the neural and behavioral level and 2) evaluating the feasibility, robustness and replicability of the delayed extinction fMRI-paradigm in a longitudinal-multicenter setting. Thus, this study provides the basis for the investigation of differences in neural fear related mechanisms between patients with anxiety disorders in a clinical context (before and after exposure-based CBT) and healthy control subjects. Three main hypotheses about the quality of our paradigm will be investigated:

1. Our newly developed delayed fear extinction paradigm evokes altering BOLD activation in relevant brain regions, especially the cingulate cortex and bilateral insula. Successful extinction learning will be reflected by a decrease of CS+/CS-difference in neural activation and behavioral rating data (US-expectancy, arousal, valence) over the course of the experiment.

2. Reinstatement of conditioned fear elicited by the re-exposure to the US after extinction training will be reflected by a temporary reactivation of CS+/US association, which will increase the CS+/CS-difference in neural activation and behavioral rating data.

3. We assume that extinction processes can be repeated across time and site setting. Therefore, a well conducted paradigm will be able to elicit comparable neural processes when applied twice, even though familiarity of procedures, context and task in a repeated measurement could influence results. This requirement is very important in light of investigations comparing patients before and after exposure-based CBT. Complementarily, we test whether this paradigm can be used in multicentric settings in which data are merged across sites by showing that our paradigm is standardized and robust enough to not produce systematic differences between sites.

2. Methods

The current study is part of the national research consortium “Providing Tools for Effective Care and Treatment of Anxiety Disorders” (PROTECT-AD) funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in the context of the “Research Net for Mental Illnesses” (“Forschungsnetz psychische Erkrankungen”). Using a multicenter randomized controlled trial accompanied by psycho-physiological, neural and (epi-)genetic add-on projects, the consortium aims to test for the critical role of extinction learning during exposure-based CBT (Heinig et al., 2017).

2.2 Paradigm

The experimental procedure is closely based on a protocol described in detail by Hollandt et al. (2020) tailoring the procedures of exposure therapy. A major experimental optimization is the 24h consolidation phase between fear acquisition and extinction training. Since exposure therapy targets long-lasting and well-consolidated fear-memories with a significant delay between fear acquisition and extinction processes in therapy, PROTECT-AD used this delayed extinction paradigm to investigate the mechanisms of extinction training more accurately. Additionally, to make sure that each participant indeed acquired a robust fear response that is supposed to be inhibited by extinction training, PROTECT-AD uses instructed fear acquisition training. In short (see Supplementary Methods 1.2-1.3 for more details), participants underwent a two-day experimental differential fear acquisition and delayed extinction training protocol. Day 1 started with a pre-conditioning phase (both CSs were presented twice without any US presentation). During a subsequent fear acquisition training, one of two neutral facial stimuli (CS+; assignment was counterbalanced between subjects) embedded in either blue or yellow background color co-terminated with an aversive electric US during six of 10 presentations (pseudo-randomized order, 60% reinforcement rate) while the other stimulus (CS?) was never paired with the US during another 10 presentations. Electric stimulation was applied by an electrode attached to the inside of the non-dominant forearm. Immediately before the fear acquisition training, the US intensity was individually calibrated using a standardized shock work-up procedure (Heitland et al., 2013) to find the intensity that was rated as “highly aversive but not painful". The subjects were instructed about CS+/US contingency (but not the reinforcement rate) prior to the acquisition training. The fear acquisition tarining took place in an experimental room outside the MRI scanner. Startle blink magnitudes and skin conductance rates (SCR) were assessed on day 1 to check for successful multi-modal acquisition of conditioned fear (Supplementary Methods 1.3 and Supplementary Results 2.1). On day 2, on average 24h after acquisition training, uninstructed extinction training was conducted during fMRI. The US-electrode was attached at the same position as during the previous day and the US intensity was kept the same with an instruction that US-presentation might be possible again. The extinction training started with one re-acquisition trial (one CS+ followed by the US), followed by an extinction training during which both stimuli were presented again 2 x 10 times (first and second extinction phase; Ex1, Ex2) without any US presentation. After that, a reinstatement (RI) of the US comprising the presentation of three USs without any CS presentation during black screen was applied, followed by another 10 presentations for each CS (reinstatement test phase; RIT). During pre-conditioning, fear acquisition, extinction, and reinstatement test, participants were asked to rate US-expectancy, arousal and valence respectively. For the probability estimate of the occurrence of the US during the next trial, a small picture of the upcoming CS informed about the next stimulus to be presented (“Now this picture is following”), accompanied by a request to rate by using the computer mouse (lab, day 1) or keypad (MRI, day 2). On day 1, the US-expectancy ratings preceded every single CS presentation and were conducted on a visual analogue scale (0-100%). US-ratings on day 2 were conducted at six times only in the MRI environment on a 10%-stepped scale: Pre and post re-acquisition, post Ex1, post Ex2, post RI, and post RIT. Ratings of valence and arousal on day 2 were also conducted at six times in the MRI environment on a 10%-stepped scale: Post re-acquisition, pre Ex1, post Ex1, post Ex2, post RI, and post RIT. Since arousal and valence ratings were always given after presentation of the CS (“How aroused/comfortable did you feel during the presentation of the previous picture?”), the Pre Ex1 rating was given after the first of the ten presentations of the CS during Ex1 (for visualization compare Fig. 1). After presentation of the stimuli, requests to rate valence (very bad – very good) and arousal (not agitated at all – very agitated), according to the presented stimulus, were given. Further details about the procedure can be found in the Supplementary Methods 1.2. The whole experimental protocol (t1) was repeated after an interval of an average of 13 weeks (second measurement: t2), using two different visual stimuli as CSs to avoid re-acquisition.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Changes in subjective ratings of CS+ and CS-during extinction training during t1 and t2 for: A) US-expectancy B) arousal, and C) valence. Re-acquisition: One initial pairing of CS+ and US (same intensity as during acquisition training during day 1 confirming contingency. *Since arousal and valence ratings were always given after presentation of the CS (“How aroused/comfortable did you feel during the presentation of the previous picture?”), the Pre Ex1 rating was given after the first of the ten presentations of the CS during Ex1.

Results

Fig. 1 provides a visualization of US-expectancy (A), arousal (B) and valence (C) ratings during extinction training (day 2). To provide evidence for successful fear acquisition on day 1 we also report results from subjective ratings, skin conductance response (SCR) and startle reaction from fear acquisition training (Supplementary Results 2.1 and Supplementary Fig. S2), and analyzed the recall of the conditioned response and the effect of re-acquisition before extinction training (Supplementary Results 2.2-2.3). As additional manipulation check in fMRI data, we also analyzed the main effects (CS+ > CS-) and (CS-> CS+) during Ex1 at t1 and t2 respectively (Supplementary Table S1).

Extinction training effects

Behavioral data

US-expectancy

A decrease in CS+ > CS-differentiation was reflected in a Time X Stimulus interaction from post re-acquisition to post Ex2 (t1: F(2,98) = 15.68, p < .001, η² = 0.14; t2: F(2,98) = 19.06, p < .001, η² = 0.16). From post re-acquisition to post Ex2, the CS+/US-expectancy decreased (t1: F(2,98) = 43.36, p < .001, η² = 0.31; t2: F(2,98) = 48.62, p < .001, η² = 0.33; Fig.1A).

Arousal

The CS+ related arousal decreased from pre Ex1 to post Ex2 (t1: F(2,98) = 26.45, p < .001, η² = 0.21; t2: F(2,98) = 9.36, p < .001, η² = 0.09; Fig.1B).

Valence

The CS+ related negative valence reduced at t2 from pre Ex1 to post Ex2 (t1: F(2,98) = 1.20, p = .30, η² = 0.01; t2: F(2,98) = 4.26, p = .02, η² = 0.04). At the very end of the experiment, valence ratings were still significantly lower for CS+ compared to CS-(t1: F(1,98) = 14.77, p < .001, η² = 0.13; t2: F(1,98) = 22.48, p < .001, η² = 0.19; Fig.1C).

fMRI

Across both measurement points (t1 + t2), we found extinction training effects from first to second extinction phase (Ex1 vs. Ex2) regarding the decreasing CS+ > CS-difference (mainly driven by an activation decrease corresponding to the CS+) in the insular cortex and parietal operculum with supramarginal gyrus as well as in the middle cingulate cortex (Table 1A, Fig. 2).

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 1.

Extinction effects from the first to the second extinction phase and from the second extinction phase to the post-reinstatement phase, respectively, across both measurement points. All contrasts were assessed at p < .005 uncorrected with a cluster threshold of k = 175.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Activation difference CS+ > CS-form first (Ex1) to second (Ex2) extinction phase. Correlation of activation change in the right insula (pre Ex1 > post Ex2 for CS+ CS-) with the change in valence ratings (pre Ex1 > post Ex2 for CS+ CS-). All contrasts were calculated across both measurement points and assessed at p < .005 uncorrected with a cluster threshold of k = 175 (see Table 1).

Regarding the CS-> CS+ difference (mainly driven by an activation increase corresponding to the CS+), we found activation in a cluster of the left precuneus extending to the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) (Table 1B, Fig. 3).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Activation difference CS-> CS+ form first (Ex1) to second (Ex2) extinction phase. All contrasts were calculated across both measurement points and assessed at p < .005 uncorrected with a cluster threshold of k = 175 (see Table 1).

Activation change (Ex1 > Ex2 for CS+ > CS-) in the bilateral insula and middle cingulate cortex was correlated with change in valence ratings (pre Ex1 > post Ex1 > post Ex2 for CS+ > CS-): right insula r = .36, p < .001 (Fig. 2); left insula r = .32, p = .001; cingulate cortex r = .24, p = .018. No correlation was found with changes in US-expectancy and arousal ratings.

Reinstatement effects

Behavioral data

US-expectancy

A reinstatement effect in CS+/CS-differentiation was observed only during t1 in a Time X Stimulus interaction from post Ex2 to post RI (t1: F(1,98) = 10.69, p = .001, η² = 0.10; t2: F(1,98) = .78, p = .38, η² = 0.01). The reinstatement led to an increased CS+/US-expectancy (t1: F(1,98) = 18.49, p < .001, η² = 0.16; t2: F(1,98) = 6.71, p = .011, η² = 0.06) which then decreased again after RIT (t1: F(1,98)=46.64, p<.001, η² =.32; t2: F(1,98) = 39.81, p < .001, η² = .29). At the end of the experiment, the CS+/US-expectancy as well as the CS-/US-expectancy were still higher than 0 and a CS+ > CS-differentiation regarding US-expectancy was still present (t1: F(1,98) = 69.77, p < .001, η² = 0.42; t2: F(1,98) = 93.74, p < .001, η² = 0.49; Fig.1A).

Arousal

After the reinstatement, the CS+ related arousal increased again (t1: F(1,98) = 19.84, p < .001, η² = 0.17; t2: F(1,98) = 4.06, p = .05, η² = 0.04) and decreased during RIT (t1: F(1,98) = 48.45, p < .001, η² = 0.33; t2: F(1,98) = 27.60, p < .001, η² = 0.22). At the very end of the experiment arousal was still rated significantly higher for CS+ compared to CS-(t1: F(1,98) = 44.61, p < .001, η² = 09.31; t2: F(1,98) = 60.75, p < .001, η² = 0.38; Fig.1B).

Valence

There were no significant changes in valence ratings.

fMRI

Between the second extinction phase and the reinstatement test phase (Ex2 vs. RIT), effects in a decrease in CS+ > CS-difference were found in the anterior insular and anterior cingulate cortex (Table 1C, Fig. 4).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4.

Activation difference CS+ > CS-form second extinction phase (Ex2) to post-reinstatement phase. All contrasts were calculated across both measurement points and assessed at p < .005 uncorrected with a cluster threshold of k = 175 (see Table 1).

A decrease in CS+ deactivation was found in the CS-> CS+ difference contrast predominately in the bilateral pre- and postcentral gyrus, occipital areas and cerebellum, as well as in the left hippocampus (Table 1D, Fig. 5).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5.

Activation difference CS-> CS+ from second extinction phase (Ex2) to post-reinstatement phase. All contrasts were calculated across both measurement points and assessed at p < .005 uncorrected with a cluster threshold of k = 175 (see Table 1).

In the additional analysis with only the late half of Ex2 and early half of RIT (5-trials each), no sig. results on our corrected threshold were found. However, anticipating small effects, we decided to explore this contrast at threshold p < .005 (uncorr.) with no minimum cluster size. On the uncorrected level however, we found the following: Across both measurement points (t1 + t2) we found a reinstatement effect in an interaction of CS-type X pre/post reinstatement in a cluster of the ACC (voxel size: 109; x = 0; y = 40; z = 10; F = 16.60; FWE-corrected p_{peak level} = .605; p_uncorrected < .001, threshold p < .005). Before the reinstatement, BOLD-activation in this cluster was higher during CS-presentation than during CS+. After the reinstatement, this differentiation showed the opposite pattern (Supplementary Fig. S3).

Activation change (pre reinstatement vs. post reinstatement for CS+ vs. CS-) in the ACC was correlated with change in US-expectancy ratings (pre reinstatement vs. post reinstatement for CS+ > CS-): r = .25, p = .013. No correlation was found with changes in arousal and valence ratings.

Stability of paradigm

Stability of fMRI data

Effects of time

The three-way interactions of CS type (CS+, CS-) X time (Ex1, Ex2) X measurement point (t1, t2) and CS type X time (Ex2, RIT) X measurement point revealed no significant effects (threshold p < .005; k = 175), suggesting similar BOLD activation patterns due to extinction training and reinstatement between t1 and t2.

We further evaluated the consistency of the t1 and t2 fMRI data by analyzing the conjunction (minimum t-statistics, conjunction null) of the respective differential effects CS+ > CS-during Ex1 showing high consistency in insular, cingulate and supramarginal activation and CS-> CS+ during Ex1 showing high consistency in the precuneus with posterior cingulate cortex, the medial frontal gyrus with gyrus rectus including the area of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, angular gyrus and hippocampal areas (Supplementary Table S4, Supplementary Fig. S4 + S5).

Effects of site as a covariate

Differences in neural activation due to the different sites were found predominately in occipital areas as well as in the cerebellum, thalamus and basal ganglia (Fig. 6). Detailed information can be found in Table 2.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 2.

Differences in neural activation due to the different centers. Effects across the whole experiment. All contrasts were assessed at p < .005 uncorrected and a cluster threshold of k = 175.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 6.

Differences in neural activation due to the different centers. Effects across the whole experiment. All contrasts were assessed at p < .005 uncorrected with a cluster threshold of k = 175 (see Table 2).

Basic comparisons at sites

Detailed information can be found in the Supplementary Tables S5-10. Across both measurement points (t1 + t2), activation differences between the learned threat and safety signal (CS+ > CS- and CS-> CS+) during the first extinction phase were assessed for each site individually. At every site, CS+ > CS-differences were found in the anterior insular cortex, middle cingulate cortex and supramarginal gyrus, whereas CS-> CS+ differences were found in the medial frontal cortex and gyrus rectus including the area of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, hippocampal areas and precuneus with posterior cingulate cortex (Supplementary Fig. S6 + S7).

Additional conjunction analyses (minimum t-statistics, conjunction null) between all six centers revealed shared activation in the bilateral insula/frontal operculum (right cluster: k = 415, MNI-coordinates x = 34; y = 28; z = 2, t = 4.74, p_{peak level} = .039 FWE-corrected; left cluster: k = 500, MNI-coordinates x = −30; y = 28; z = 2, t = 4.74, p_{peak leve} = .321 FWE-corrected; assessed at p<.005 uncorrected and a cluster threshold of k=175) for the contrast CS+ > CS-during the first extinction phase across both measurement points (t1 + t2). No conjoint activation above cluster threshold was found for the opposite contrast CS-> CS+ during the first extinction phase.

Exploration of the reliability of fMRI data

According to the results in the analysis of extinction training effects, the eigenvariates from a 5 mm radius sphere around the peak voxel at the left insula (MNI-coordinates: x = −34; y = 24; z = 4), right insula (MNI-coordinates: x = −30; y = 20; z=8) and the peak voxel of the second maximum cluster of the cingulate cortex (MNI-coordinates: x = 4; y = 38; z = 38) were extracted.

Recall of CS/US-associations

In the analysis of the test-retest-reliability of the CS+ during Ex1, we found fair ICC-values for the right insula (ICC = .54, F(99,100) = 3.31, p < .001), left insula (ICC = .57, F(99,100) = 3.66, p < .001) and middle cingulate cortex (ICC = .40, F(99,100) = 2.35, p < .001). In the analysis of the test-retest-reliability of the CS+ > CS-difference during Ex1, we found fair ICC-values for the right insula (ICC = .44, F(99,100) = 2.56, p < .001) and low ICC-values for the left insula (ICC = .39, F(99,100) = 2.30, p < .001) and middle cingulate cortex (ICC = .34, F(99,100) = 2.03, p < .001).

Extinction training effects

In the analysis of the test-retest-reliability of the CS+ extinction training effect (Ex1 > Ex2), we found low ICC-values for the left insula (ICC = .22, F(99,100) = 1.56, p = .013) and middle cingulate cortex (ICC = .29, F(99,100) = 1.81, p = .002). In the analysis of the test-retest-reliability of extinction training effect of the CS+ > CS-difference (Ex1 > Ex2) we found a low ICC-value for the left insula (ICC = .20, F(99,100) = 1.51, p = .020).

Reinstatement effects

No significant ICCs for the activation in the cingulate cortex cluster (x = 0; y = 40; z = 10; Supplementary Fig. S3) were found.

Discussion

Fear extinction is a relevant process to understand how conditioned fear can be inhibited. It is suggested to be one key mechanism of change during exposure-based therapy in patient’s anxiety disorders. Despite the existing evidence about fear extinction and reinstatement of fear, knowledge about the actual extinction training related changes in neural correlates is sparse. Here we provide 1) evidence that extinction training is accompanied by attenuation of neural activation in regions associated with defensive reactions and fear conditioning (e.g. insula, cingulate cortex) and 2) we show that these effects are stable across time points and sites, allowing the investigation of related processes in context of clinical multi-center studies.

In line with our first hypothesis as well as with findings from our pilot study (Hollandt et al., 2020), we found that the delayed extinction paradigm evoked strong CS+ > CS-differences in neural activation in the bilateral insular and cingulate cortex during the first extinction phase at both measurement points, supporting the hypothesis that the fear memory was successfully activated. For the CS-> CS+ contrast, we found activation in the precuneus, PCC, middle frontal gyrus and angular gyrus. The insular and dorsal anterior/middle cingulate cortex are regions consistently activated during anticipation of external threat stimuli (Fullana et al., 2018). This is an excellent premise for the investigation of extinction training related learning processes, since our paradigm targets exactly those regions expected to be involved in fear extinction learning.

On the behavioral level, at both measurement points, the recall of CS/US-associations learned the day before during acquisition prior to any extinction training showed higher US-expectancy, higher arousal and lower valence regarding the CS+ than the CS-. Together with the findings on the behavioral level as well as in the SCR and startle response at day 1, this provides evidence that fear acquisition training was successful and it supports the premise that the explicit fear memory was successfully activated on a level of subjective appraisal on day 2.

Confirming our first hypothesis, effects of extinction training were reflected by a decrease of neural activation associated with the CS+ > CS-difference. The interaction between first and second extinction phase showed a distinctly reduced CS+ > CS-difference in the insular and cingulate cortex during the second extinction phase. In the CS-> CS+ difference, activation decrease was found in the precuneus and PCC. These extinction training effects indicate extinction learning of the new CS+_no_US association on a neural level.

The functions of the insula are complex; amongst others, it is part of neural circuits involved in sensory processing and emotion with strong evidence supporting its role in mediating fear and anxiety in fear conditioning (Gogolla, 2017). It seems likely that the insula detects mismatches in extinction learning: At the beginning of extinction training, due to the initial recall of the conditioned response, the mismatch between the predicted CS+/US-association and the actual outcome is very high. Therefore, the insula activation is higher. Over the course of the training, learning occurs and predictions are less divergent from the actual outcome. Thus, less insula activation might be needed. This would support the hypothesis that the mechanism of extinction learning relies on expectancy violations in terms of prediction errors (Craske et al., 2014).

Geuter et al. (2017) provided evidence for a functional dissociation between anterior and posterior insula. While activity in the anterior insula reflects the summation of pain expectation and prediction errors resulting from unexpected pain, the posterior insula and parietal operculum employ stimulus intensity coding. We found activation reduction not only in both parts of the insula but also in the parietal operculum and supramarginal gyrus, which is part of the somatosensory association cortex. Since we used electric stimulation as US, intensity coding of a potential painful stimulus takes place. It is plausible that the re-acquisition with the US right before extinction training evoked increased activation in the insula, parietal operculum and supramarginal gyrus as an expectation of an unpleasant, possibly painful tactile stimulus and a response to the actual aversive US which then decreased until the end of the second extinction phase, since no more US were given.

The bilateral insula is also part of the salience network together with the cingulate cortex. The salience network responds to behaviorally salient events and plays a crucial role in integrating sensory stimuli to initiate cognitive control (Chand, 2017). The dorsal anterior/middle cingulate cortex plays an important role in emotional awareness involving emotion expression and regulation (Smith et al., 2019). In our experiment, this region was consistently activated in the CS+ > CS-comparisons and showed a distinct activation reduction in CS+ > CS-differences during extinction training, possibly reflecting a decreasing need of emotional responses. In accordance with the idea of the salience network, activation reduction in insula and dorsal anterior/middle cingulate might reflect the process of the CS+ losing its predictive value for the US and thus the difference between CS+ and CS-its salience.

Fullana et al. (2018) also confirmed extinction learning to be linked to a pattern frequently observed in human fMRI studies of ‘central autonomic network’ brain activation with the anterior insular and dorsal anterior cingulate cortices as its main cortical components. Their co-activation apparently has been linked prominently to the elicitation of negative affective states, including threat-related anticipatory anxiety. Decreasing co-activation therefore might be evidence for lessening negative affect and anxiety, which is supported by our behavioral rating data. Our analysis extends these findings from immediate to delayed extinction learning, which is important with regard to modeling the processes in exposure-based CBT for patients with anxiety disorders.

On the behavioral level, effects of extinction training were reflected by a decreased CS+ > CS-difference in US-expectancy and arousal reduction toward the CS+ over the course of the experiment. These changes in ratings suggest extinction learning on an explicit level of cognitive and emotional appraisal. Additionally, extinction training effects in valence ratings were correlated with decreasing CS+ > CS-difference in insula and cingulate cortex. This suggests an association between explicit and implicit learning processes happening during this paradigm and underlies the biological foundation of psychological phenomena.

A general activation reduction from the second extinction phase to the reinstatement test phase regarding the CS+ > CS-differences was found in the anterior insular and anterior cingulate cortex, suggesting an overall ongoing extinction learning where the CS+ loses its predictive value and trait as a threat for the US. The reduction of deactivation in the hippocampus and pre-as well as postcentral gyrus on the CS+ regarding the CS-> CS+ contrast suggests an involvement of memory as well as senso-motoric processes in a later phase of extinction training.

However, confirming our second hypothesis, a reinstatement of conditioned fear after exposure to the US post extinction training was reflected by temporary changes in neural activation as well as subjective appraisal. On the neural level, we found an interaction of CS-type X pre/post reinstatement in the ACC. Before the reinstatement, activation was higher during CS-presentation than during CS+, whereas after the reinstatement, this differentiation showed the opposite pattern. This activation change was furthermore positively correlated with changes in CS+ > CS-difference US-expectancy ratings, pointing again to the biological foundation of psychological phenomena. The presentation of the US alone between the end of the second and start of the post-reinstatement phase led to a higher US-expectancy and arousal toward the CS+ at the start of the post-reinstatement phase, compared to the end of the second extinction phase after which a new extinction learning to the lowest observed level of US-expectancy and arousal took place.

In neither variable of the analysis were the CS+ > CS-differences completely vanished. This goes along with an observation from the clinical context: extinction of well-consolidated pathological fear is challenging and needs multiple exposure-based CBT sessions. Although our participants did not suffer from pathological fear, the combination of acquisition training and 24h of consolidation generated a very robust excitatory fear response. The meta-analysis on fMRI-extinction studies by Fullana et al. (2018) confirmed that fear responses to CS+ vs. CS– are rarely completely diminished during extinction learning. On the one hand, this might be due to an insufficient number of stimulus presentations during the experiment. On the other hand, during extinction learning memory processes play a crucial role and hence traces of extinction memory need consolidation time. Besides that, it also suggests that despite successful extinction training, a residual fear caused by the original CS+_US link remains.

Furthermore, in line with our third hypothesis, we could substantially extend initial findings from Hollandt et al. (2020) and confirm the stability of neural and behavioral data associated to extinction learning processes across two measurement points and six investigation sites. We were able to find comparable effects at all sites, respectively in basic comparisons regarding neural and behavioral data as well as overall comparable effects at t1 and t2, regarding extinction training and we found systematic time-depended or site-dependent influences neither on the neural activation in fear related brain areas nor in the behavioral data.

Regarding the feasibility of the multicenter approach of our delayed extinction paradigm, we were able to demonstrate that it works exactly as intended repeatedly at different sites with different MRI-scanners and personnel, with site specific samples of n = 15. This means that this paradigm is useful and valuable for clinical comparisons of patients before and after exposure-based CBT as well as patients compared to healthy control subjects. Future studies using this delayed extinction paradigm have the potential of shedding new light on the key mechanisms of exposure-based therapy and therefore foster patient care.

In light of the recent ‘replication crisis’ in psychology and neuroscience (Ioannidis, 2005; Open Science, 2015), task-based fMRI is harshly criticized for having poor reliability (Bennett & Miller, 2010). Reliability is measured by Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) which are particular difficult to deal with in fMRI-settings since ICCs can be analyzed for specific regions of interest vs. whole-brain as well as different contrasts of interest, and thus produce very different outcomes (Brandt et al., 2013). We found low to fair test-retest reliability for selected comparisons regarding the recall of CS/US-associations and low test-retest reliability regarding extinction training effects. This is partially lower than the ICCs we found for the behavioral data: fair ICCs for the recall of CS/US-associations and low to good ICCs for extinction training effects.

A possible explanation for low ICCs in experimental paradigms in general is low between-subject variability (high homogeneity) in samples, which causes low reliability of individual differences. As a result, robust and replicable paradigms exist, although having low inter-individual reliability. These paradigms can therefore be useful for the investigation of between-group differences in the first place (Hedge et al. 2018). Analyses of the individual trajectories on the basis of our paradigm, however, might profit from different approaches than the traditional group- and event-contrasting fMRI analyses – e.g. machine learning (Hahn et al., 2015). Considering that we explored ICCs on the basis of activation observed in difference contrasts on group level, this might be a confounding issue here.

Although we carefully conducted our study and analyses, several limitations must be considered. To test our hypothesis about extinction training and reinstatement, we used the power of the large sample across both measurement points, while for the exploration of site and time effects we only tested the comparisons CS+ > CS- and CS-> CS+ at the beginning of the experiment in which effect sizes were expected to be largest. Based on our results, we can only assume that extinction training related decrease in CS+ vs. CS-activation differences as we found in the combined sample would also be found at each site given a larger sample.

As anticipated, the consolidated conditioned reactions in form of higher US-expectancy, higher arousal, lower valence and higher neural activation in the insula and cingulate cortex towards the CS+ compared to the CS-was quite strong and extinction training effects rather small. The rating data showed that even at the very end of the experiment, there were still significant differences between CS+ and CS-ratings. Obviously, extinction learning was not completed at the end of the experiment. Certainly, longer extinction training would be necessary to completely diminish differences in the reaction towards CS+ and CS-. However, since we are highly interested in investigating patients with anxiety disorders with this paradigm, we had to make the practical decision to cut back on MRI scanning time. The MRI environment with its very limited space, no possibility to move, and loud noises can be a stressful experience even for healthy subjects but even more so for patients who suffer from anxiety. Therefore, we compromised the length of the experiment so that it was manageable for patients.

Regarding the ICC reliability analyses we had to face the challenge of a multicenter study that was not initially designed to test the reliability of our paradigm. Ideally, all participants are tested multiple times on the same set of different MRI-scanners so that test-retest reliability as well as inter-scanner reliability can be disentangled (Friedman et al., 2008). Since we were only interested in the overall quality and reproducibility of our paradigm and neither looking for definitive biomarkers nor individual differences research, we focused on exploring the regions our extinction training targets in line with the current literature (Fullana et al. 2018). Also, we only tested each participant twice in the same scanner. Therefore, we had to remove the influence of site by regressing the eigenvariates to site and only explore the test-retest reliability of the residuals. For a proper investigation of our paradigm’s reliability, a specifically planned study would be needed.

In conclusion, we could validate our delayed extinction fMRI-paradigm to be suitable for the investigation of fear extinction. As a necessary further development in extinction research, we specifically focused on process information of neural correlates associated with fear extinction training and reinstatement to shed new light on the possible neural mechanisms underlying exposure-based CBT. Convergent findings in behavioral and neural data confirm the double-sided nature of fear processing with explicit and implicit aspects originating both from neuro-biological fundamentals.

Furthermore, we provide evidence that our paradigm is robust and appropriate for multicentric settings. Thus, it provides a solid basis for future clinical investigations (pre/post exposure therapy) on patients with anxiety disorders as it is already in preparation in the PROTECT-AD consortium.