Preventing the return of fear in humans using reconsolidation update mechanisms: A verification report of Schiller et al. (2010)

Abstract

In a highly influential report, Schiller et al. (2010) demonstrated long-lasting fear reduction in humans when conducting extinction training shortly following fear memory reactivation. While trying to experimentally replicate the critical conditions of Schiller et al. (2010, Experiment 1), we discovered several irregularities in their paper. Criteria for participant exclusion and the number of excluded participants were misreported; qualitative experimenter decisions actually determined their participant inclusions. Moreover, their statistical analyses were internally inconsistent. After corresponding with the original authors, we received their original data files, allowing us to replicate the reported analyses to verify their results. Here, we report the results of seven separate sets of analyses, three replicating the analyses reported by Schiller et al. (2010) and four applying more principled approaches to participant exclusion, thus including different subsets of the total datasets available, to deduce the influence of specific exclusions and experimenter decisions on the results. For Experiment 1, we were mostly able to replicate the analyses contained in the original report when applying the same qualitative exclusions. However, we found that all of the differences in fear recovery between reactivation-extinction and regular extinction reported by Schiller et al. (2010) were dependent on the qualitative exclusions that they made. With any of the principled approaches to participant exclusion, the degree of fear recovery was highly similar between groups. For Experiment 2, a similar analysis was not possible due to a lack of available data for the excluded participants. Hence, we conducted a verification analysis on the original sample only, which failed to confirm the differences in fear recovery reported by Schiller et al. (2010). Together with the re-analyses, we report a number of additional issues with the way Schiller et al. (2010) processed, analyzed, and reported their data that indicate that their results are unreliable and flawed.