Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39680437›Full record

ArticleeLife2024

Contributions of associative and non-associative learning to the dynamics of defensive ethograms.

Quan-Son Eric Le, Daniel Hereford, Chandrashekhar D Borkar, Zach Aldaco, Julia Klar, Alexis Resendez, Jonathan P Fadok

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Tail-rattling in rodents: more than a threat display.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The exploration of consciousness in insects.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Quan-Son Eric LeTulane Brain Institute, Tulane University, New Orleans, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1409-7790
Daniel HerefordTulane Brain Institute, Tulane University, New Orleans, United States.
Chandrashekhar D BorkarTulane Brain Institute, Tulane University, New Orleans, United States.
Zach AldacoTulane Brain Institute, Tulane University, New Orleans, United States.
Julia KlarTulane Brain Institute, Tulane University, New Orleans, United States.
Alexis ResendezTulane Brain Institute, Tulane University, New Orleans, United States.
Jonathan P FadokTulane Brain Institute, Tulane University, New Orleans, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0608-5151

Funding

Neural circuits regulating flight and panic behavior.R01MH122561 · NIMH · TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA · PI FADOK, JONATHAN P · 2020 to 2024
$2.4M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH122561NIMH NIH HHS R01MH122561
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Defensive behavior changes based on threat intensity, proximity, and context of exposure, and learning about danger-predicting stimuli is critical for survival. However, most Pavlovian fear conditioning paradigms focus only on freezing behavior, obscuring the contributions of associative and non-associative mechanisms to dynamic defensive responses. To thoroughly investigate defensive ethograms, we subjected male and female adult C57BL/6 J mice to a Pavlovian conditioning paradigm that paired footshock with a serial compound stimulus (SCS) consisting of distinct tone and white noise (WN) stimulus periods. To investigate how associative and non-associative mechanisms affect defensive responses, we compared this paired SCS-footshock group with four control groups that were conditioned with either pseudorandom unpaired presentations of SCS and footshock, shock only, or reversed SCS presentations with inverted tone-WN order, with paired or unpaired presentations. On day 2 of conditioning, the paired group exhibited robust freezing during the tone period with switching to explosive jumping and darting behaviors during the WN period. Comparatively, the unpaired and both reverse SCS groups expressed less tone-induced freezing and rarely showed jumping or darting during WN. Following the second day of conditioning, we observed how defensive behavior changed over two extinction sessions. During extinction, the tone-induced freezing decreased in the paired group, and mice rapidly shifted from escape jumping during WN to a combination of freezing and darting. The unpaired, unpaired reverse, and shock-only groups displayed defensive tail rattling and darting during the SCS, with minimal freezing and jumping. Interestingly, the paired reverse group did not jump to WN, and tone-evoked freezing was resistant to extinction. These findings demonstrate that non-associative factors promote some defensive responsiveness, but associative factors are required for robust cue-induced freezing and high-intensity flight expression.

Indexed as

Conditioning, ClassicalFearMice, Inbred C57BLAnimalsAssociation LearningBehavior, AnimalFemaleMaleMiceassociative learningdefensive behaviorfearfear extinctionmouseneurosciencenon-associative learningpavlovian conditioning

Identifiers

PMID39680437
PMCPMC11649235

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.