Ten BALB mice (4 and 6 individuals from the conditioned and unconditioned groups, respectively) were not included in the statistical comparisons due a greatly reduced level of exploratory activity, as detailed in ref. [51].
N's = 28 32 mice per strain for each of the unconditioned and conditioned groups.
All variables associated with the conditioning procedure were randomized and counter-balanced across the unconditioned and conditioned groups of mice.
Conversely, in females the first factor mainly represented activity measures (0.78-0.82 loadings), with much lower loadings of FREEZ (-0.30) and SHAV-ITC (0.40) variables, and the second factor grouped unconditioned anxiety measures from the elevated zero-maze test (both loadings of 0.85; Table 7).
It is outstanding that, in males, the first factor grouped unconditioned anxiety (elevated zero-maze; 0.71-0.75 loadings), conditioned fear (FREEZ; loading -0.50) and acquisition of two-way active avoidance (SHAV-ITC; loading 0.44), while the second factor represented locomotor activity (0.86-0.87 loadings; Table 7).
For all place-conditioning experiments pairings were balanced so that for half of each experimental group the unconditioned stimulus (MCh, WCh, IL, IPL) was paired with one of the patterns and for half with the other.
Another group of unconditioned mice underwent a similar procedure but were offered NaCl instead of being exposed to LiCl.
The significantly larger conditioned MEPs (relative to unconditioned) in the patient group imply that these 2 forms of inhibition are weak in the AH.
The cells were divided into seven groups, where groups 1 and 2 were exposed to both the conditioned (CS) and the unconditioned (UCS) stimulus, while only group 1 was re-exposed to CS during evocation.
These individuals expressed a mean preference score and number of compartment entries >6.5 standard deviations (SD) and >2 SD from the group averages of unconditioned mice, respectively.
