Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31308247›Full record

ArticleLearning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.)2019

Cue-dependent safety and fear learning in a discriminative auditory fear conditioning paradigm in the mouse.

Makoto Takemoto, Wen-Jie Song

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Makoto TakemotoDepartment of Sensory and Cognitive Physiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto 860-8556, Japan.
Wen-Jie SongDepartment of Sensory and Cognitive Physiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto 860-8556, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Discrimination between sensory stimuli associated with safety and threat is crucial for behavioral decisions. Discriminative conditioning paradigms with two acoustic conditioned stimuli (one paired with shock [CS+], the other unpaired with shock [CS-]) have been widely used as an experimental model for fear learning. However, no attention has been paid to the effect of the CS- on safety in the paradigms, because the CS- served as a neutral cue or elevated the freezing level due to fear generalization although less effectively than the CS+. By using a noise and a tone as two acoustic CSs in a discriminative auditory fear conditioning (AFC) paradigm, here we demonstrate that mice learn safety for the CS- while showing fear for the CS+ with opposing emotional behaviors. We found that after learning mice exhibited a significant suppression of context-dependent freezing during the CS-, but not during the CS+, indicating learned safety without fear generalization for the CS-. In contrast, the mice showed an enhanced level of freezing during the CS+ even in a novel spatial context, indicating cued fear for the CS+. Moreover, the CS+ also induced rapid defensive behaviors, whereas the CS- disinhibited normal exploratory behaviors. On the other hand, mice showed no significant suppression of contextual fear during the CS- in a paradigm with a pair of tone CSs at different frequencies, although they clearly discriminated the two tones. These results suggest our AFC paradigm with the noise and tone CSs as a useful experimental model for cue-dependent discriminative learning of safety and threat.

Indexed as

CuesAnimalsAuditory PerceptionBehavior, AnimalConditioning, ClassicalDiscrimination LearningFearMiceMice, Inbred C57BLSafety

Identifiers

PMID31308247
PMCPMC6636544

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.