Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Feb 26.
Published in final edited form as: Behav Brain Res. 2020 Nov 6;400:113006. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2020.113006

Figure 2:

Figure 2:

Startle response after the first (FPS1) and last (FPS8) discriminative conditioning session. In FPS1 mice showed an increased startle response to the fear and the safety+fear cue, compared to the safety cue alone, indicating cue discrimination. Despite a non-significant stress x trial type interaction, this effect was carried by the no JS group (A). In FPS8, both the no JS and the JS group displayed higher FPS to the fear and the safety+fear cue compared to the safety cue alone. Moreover, in JS mice the FPS response to the safety+fear cue was significantly reduced compared to the fear cue, demonstrating successful fear inhibition and thus safety learning (B). Sex differences were not observed, therefore males and females were collapsed for graphical presentation. FPS: fear potentiated startle, JS: juvenile stress, no JS: no juvenile stress, S: safety cue, F: fear cue, SF: safety+fear cue; *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ****p<0.0001 between cues as indicated within the JS and the no JS group. #p<0.05 F and SF vs S collapsed over stress groups after insignificant stress x trial type interaction.