. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Apr 21.

Published in final edited form as: Behav Brain Res. 2012 Feb 11;230(1):229–236. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2012.02.003

Table 4.

Percent contextual and cued fear conditioning¹

Treatment	Sex	Baseline^a	Contextual test	Pre-tone cued test^a	During tone cued test
SA	M	23.866±2.165	46.521±4.630	31.067±4.619	62.677±4.728
THIO	M	24.786±2.232	49.440±4.114	30.617±2.311	67.949±4.238
MA	M	21.410±1.378	48.076±3.371	30.970±2.837	70.075±1.882
SA	F	17.593±1.784	44.800±6.186	25.796±3.125	63.728±3.869
THIO	F	21.121±1.816	42.809±3.039	25.104±2.609	68.147±3.477
MA	F	25.421±2.848	48.864±4.670	26.179±2.420	67.526±4.108

Data are expressed as mean percentages ± standard error of the mean. SA=saline; THIO=thioperamide; MA=methamphetamine. n = 8 mice/sex/treatment.

Trend for a sex*treatement interaction (P = 0.055). MA-treated females showed slightly more freezing during baseline than SA- and THIO-treated females. This was not seen in male mice.

Trend for females to freeze less than males during pre-tone cued test (P = 0.099).