Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

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

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

© 2016 Huckleberry et al.; Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press

This article is distributed exclusively by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press for the first 12 months after the full-issue publication date (see http://learnmem.cshlp.org/site/misc/terms.xhtml). After 12 months, it is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International), as described at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

PMC Copyright notice

Figure 3. — Fear generalization as a function of conditioning procedure. (A) Three training procedures were compared in Experiment 3. Three-shock foreground conditioning (Fore. ×3; n = 24) was equated with background conditioning (Back.; n = 23) with respect to the number and timing of shocks, while one-shock foreground conditioning (Fore. ×1; n = 24) was equated with background conditioning in terms of the amount of contextual fear produced. (B) Mice were trained in Context A and tested in both A and an alternate context (S or RFS). (C) Mean freezing during test sessions for mice tested with alternate context RFS as a function of training procedure. Mice froze more in A than in RFS, and Foreground ×3 conditioning produced higher levels of freezing than did the other procedures (P’s ≤ 0.001). (D) Mean freezing during test sessions for mice tested with alternate context S as a function of training procedure. Mice froze more in A than in S, and Foreground ×3 conditioning produced higher levels of freezing than did the other procedures (P’s ≤ 0.001). (E) Mean freezing during test sessions as a function of alternate context. Pairwise post hoc comparisons confirmed that freezing was higher in Context S than in Context RFS (P = 0.042), but freezing in Context A did not differ between groups (P = 0.125). (F) Mean freezing during test sessions as a function of test order. Pairwise post hoc comparisons confirmed that freezing in the alternate contexts was lower in mice receiving the A → Alt. order than in those receiving the Alt → A order (P = 0.033), whereas freezing in A was not affected by test order (P = 0.998). Error bars represent ±1 SEM. (*) P < 0.05.