↓ Skip to main content

Learning to forget: manipulating extinction and reconsolidation processes to treat addiction

Overview of attention for article published in Psychopharmacology, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Learning to forget: manipulating extinction and reconsolidation processes to treat addiction
Published in
Psychopharmacology, May 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00213-012-2750-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary M. Torregrossa, Jane R. Taylor

Abstract

Finding effective long-lasting treatments for drug addiction has been an elusive goal. Consequently, researchers are beginning to investigate novel treatment strategies including manipulations of drug-associated memories. When environmental stimuli (cues) become associated with drug use, they become powerful motivators of continued drug use and relapse after abstinence. Reducing the strength of these cue-drug memories could decrease the number of factors that induce craving and relapse to aid in the treatment of addiction. Enhancing the consolidation of extinction learning and/or disrupting cue-drug memory reconsolidation are two strategies that have been proposed to reduce the strength of cues in motivating drug-seeking and drug-taking behavior. Here, we review the latest basic and clinical research elucidating the mechanisms underlying consolidation of extinction and reconsolidation of cue-drug memories in the hopes of developing pharmacological tools that exploit these signaling systems to treat addiction.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 168 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 22%
Student > Bachelor 35 20%
Student > Master 27 15%
Researcher 27 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 6%
Other 39 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 46 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 22%
Neuroscience 34 19%
Unspecified 21 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 10%
Other 19 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 June 2012.
All research outputs
#6,755,160
of 12,218,786 outputs
Outputs from Psychopharmacology
#3,020
of 4,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,145
of 115,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychopharmacology
#26
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,218,786 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,093 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 115,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.