Skip to main content
. 2016 Dec;23(12):703–709. doi: 10.1101/lm.042374.116

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Determining the extent to which different contextual features contribute to context fear generalization. (A) Mice were trained in Context A and tested both in the original context and an alternate context. Alternate contexts were created by changing either a single feature of Context A (Roof [n = 7], Floor [n = 8], or Scent [n = 8]), or all three features (RFS; n = 12). (B) Individual freezing data during test sessions as a function of alternate context. Mice froze more in Context A than in Floor or RFS (P’s ≤ 0.003), but freezing did not differ between Context A and Scent or Roof (P’s ≥ 0.137). Black dots/lines indicate Context A was tested first, and gray dots/lines indicate the Alternate Context was tested first. (C) Discrimination ratios [A/(A + Alt.)] as a function of alternate context. Discrimination was better than chance (0.5) for the RFS (P < 0.001), Floor (P = 0.033), and Scent (P = 0.018) alternate contexts but did not exceed chance for the Roof alternate context (P = 0.919). Gray line at 0.5 denotes chance performance. Error bars represent ±1 SEM. (*) P < 0.05.