Table 2:

Details of statistics for behavioral analyses during training. Each section indicates which groups are being compared in statistical analysis. While both WT and Fmr1 KO mice had low baseline freezing, Fmr1 KO mice had almost no freezing in Context B leading to a significant difference. Both WT and Fmr1 KO mice increased freezing across training trials, but Fmr1 KO mice showed reduced freezing compared to WT mice. Even so, the fear conditioned Fmr1 KO mice did increase freezing levels after training compared to their naïve counterparts.

	Mean ± SD %		Statistic(df)	Effect Size	95% CI
Habituation	WT FrC	Fmr1 KO FrC
Context A	6.91 ± 0.80	5.67 ± 0.67	t(56) = 1.16	r = 0.15	0.39 – (−0.10)
Context B	1.88 ± 0.37	0.69 ± 0.16	t(41) = 2.99 **	r = 0.42	0.63 – 0.15
Training	WT FrC	Fmr1 KO FrC
CS-US 1	4.67	4.67
CS-US 5	74.21	50.52
	Effect of Training		F(4,224) = 98.03 ***	ŋ2 = 0.64	0.69 – 0.56
	Effect of Genotype		F(1,224) = 23.41 ***	ŋ2 = 0.09	0.17 – 0.03
Training: Nv v FrC	Fmr1 KO Nv	Fmr1 KO FrC
CS-US 5	13.98	50.52	t(46) = 7.29 ***	r = 0.73	0.84 – 0.57
	Effect of Training		F(4,184) = 29.98 ***	ŋ2 = 0.39	0.47– 0.28
	Effect of Condition		F(1,184) = 21.39 ***	ŋ2 = 0.10	0.19 – 0.04

^*p = 0.05

^**p = 0.01

^***p =/< 0.001