Skip to main content
. 2019 Sep 11;39(37):7357–7368. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0768-19.2019

Table 1.

Mean (± SEM) levels of performance to S1 and S2 during their first two (left columns) and final two (right columns) presentations in each stage of training across all experimentsa

Experiment Groups Stage 1 Stage 2
S2
S1
1 Vehicle 21 (5) 88 (4) 29 (5) 83 (7)
CHX 20 (7) 69 (8) 21 (8) 69 (9)
S1
S2
S1
2a Vehicle 14 (7) 60 (12) 29 (6) 73 (9) 52 (13) 63 (16)
Pre-CHX 9 (3) 64 (11) 43 (6) 75 (9) 51 (11) 50 (14)
Post-CHX 21 (7) 73 (13) 33 (12) 53 (13) 49 (12) 44 (16)
S1
S2
S1
2b Vehicle 24 (5) 83 (6) 57 (8) 82 (7) 64 (9) 62 (10)
5-AZA 20 (5) 71 (9) 48 (5) 76 (7) 55 (9) 58 (10)
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
S1
S1
S2
S1
3 Vehicle 18 (4) 71 (8) 12 (3) 38 (7) 76 (6) 55 (7) 73 (8)
CHX 23 (6) 72 (10) 10 (3) 45 (6) 78 (8) 49 (10) 69 (12)
Stage 1 Stage 2
S1
S2
S1
4 Vehicle 7 (5) 12 (6) 41 (10) 65 (10) 42 (8) 73 (8)
CHX 3 (2) 8 (6) 26 (7) 55 (9) 32 (8) 67 (9)
S1
S2
S1
5 Vehicle 9 (2) 19 (3) 18 (5) 59 (7) 11 (4) 59 (9)
CHX 9 (2) 18 (2) 13 (4) 68 (8) 9 (4) 56 (9)

aThe only exception is Stage 2 of Experiment 3, where the data reflect average performance to S1 throughout its eight presentations during the final extinction session on day 6. All values correspond to mean levels of freezing, except for Stage 1 of Experiment 5, in which the measure of learning and memory for the S1-sucrose association was rats' rate of magazine entries per minute.