Source Paper
Aerobic Exercise Promotes Hippocampal Neurogenesis and Ameliorates Cognitive Dysfunction Induced by Unilateral Labyrinthectomy
Zhou Z, Yu X, Tian E, Guo Z, Chen J et al.
CNS Neurosci Ther • 2026
Source Paper
Zhou Z, Yu X, Tian E, Guo Z, Chen J et al.
CNS Neurosci Ther • 2026
Objective: To assess contextual and tone-cued fear memory by measuring freezing responses in different contexts
This is a Contextual and Tone-Cued Fear Conditioning protocol using Mouse as the model organism. The procedure involves 6 procedural steps, 4 equipment items, 1 materials. Extracted from a 2026 paper published in CNS Neurosci Ther.
Model and subjects
Mouse • C57BL/6J • Male • 8 weeks old • Not specified
Study window
~10 minutes hands-on
Core workflow
Day 1: Fear conditioning training • Tone and shock parameters • Return to home cage
Primary readouts
Key equipment and reagents
Verified items
0
Direct vendor links
0
Use this page as an execution guide, then fall back to the source paper whenever you need exact exclusions, dosing details, or assay-specific caveats.
Confirm first
Use the page like this
Start here. The step list is optimized for running the experiment, with direct vendor links available inline when you need to source a cited item.
Place mice in Context A for exploration, then present tone (80 dB, 5 kHz) for 30 s followed by 0.75 mA foot shock during final second. Repeat tone-shock pairing three times with 30 s intertrial intervals.
“mice were permitted to explore the conditioning chamber (Context A; 29 × 29 × 24 cm; H10‐11M‐TC, Coulbourn Instruments) for 180 s before a tone presentation”
Present tone at 80 dB and 5 kHz for 30 seconds, with 0.75 mA foot shock administered during the final second, co-terminating with tone.
“The tone lasted 30 s at 80 dB and 5 kHz. During the final second of the tone, a 0.75 mA foot shock was administered”
Return mice to their home cages after conditioning session and quantify freezing response during final tone-shock pairing to assess learning.
“Following the conditioning session, the mice were returned to their home cages. The freezing response during the final tone‐shock pairing was quantified”
Place mice in Context A for 5 minutes without shock or tone to evaluate contextual fear memory by quantifying freezing response.
“The following day, the mice were placed in context A for 5 min without administering shock or tone to evaluate the contextual fear memory”
Expose mice to Context B while presenting tone (80 dB, 5 kHz) for 30 seconds without shock to assess tone-cued fear memory.
“On the third day, the tone‐cued fear memory was assessed by exposing the mice to Context B while presenting a tone lasting 30 s at 80 dB and 5 kHz without shock”
Count behavior as 'freezing' if no mouse movement is detected for more than 2 seconds. Record freezing levels using video camera system.
“If no mouse movement was detected for more than 2 s, its behavior was counted as "freezing", and freezing levels were recorded by a video camera”
This section explains what the experiment is doing, which readouts matter, what the data artifacts usually look like, and how the analysis should flow from raw capture to reported result.
To assess contextual and tone-cued fear memory by measuring freezing responses in different contexts
Objective
To assess contextual and tone-cued fear memory by measuring freezing responses in different contexts
Subjects
From paperMouse • C57BL/6J • Male • 8 weeks old
Sample count
From paperNot specified
Day 1: Fear conditioning training (180 s exploration + conditioning session)
Tone and shock parameters (30 s tone + 1 s shock)
Return to home cage (Not specified)
Day 2: Contextual fear memory test (5 min)
Freezing response during final tone-shock pairing (learning assessment)
From paperThis readout is central to the experiment's endpoint interpretation and should be reviewed before running the analysis.
Artifact type
Endpoint measurements summarized by group or timepoint
Comparison focus
Compare endpoint magnitude between groups, timepoints, or both
Contextual fear memory (freezing in Context A without shock/tone)
From paperThis readout is central to the experiment's endpoint interpretation and should be reviewed before running the analysis.
Artifact type
Endpoint measurements summarized by group or timepoint
Comparison focus
Compare endpoint magnitude between groups, timepoints, or both
Tone-cued fear memory (freezing during tone presentation in Context B)
From paperThis readout is central to the experiment's endpoint interpretation and should be reviewed before running the analysis.
Artifact type
Endpoint measurements summarized by group or timepoint
Comparison focus
Compare endpoint magnitude between groups, timepoints, or both
Freezing response during final tone-shock pairing (learning assessment)
From paperRaw artifact
Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
Processed artifact
Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
Final reported form
Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
Contextual fear memory (freezing in Context A without shock/tone)
From paperRaw artifact
Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
Processed artifact
Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
Final reported form
Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
Tone-cued fear memory (freezing during tone presentation in Context B)
From paperRaw artifact
Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
Processed artifact
Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
Final reported form
Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
Acquisition
Collect raw experimental outputs with enough metadata to preserve sample identity, condition, and timing.
Preprocessing / cleaning
Review raw outputs for quality, remove unusable captures, and organize the data into a comparison-ready table or image set.
Scoring or quantification
Quantify the primary readouts for this experiment: Freezing response during final tone-shock pairing (learning assessment); Contextual fear memory (freezing in Context A without shock/tone); Tone-cued fear memory (freezing during tone presentation in Context B).
Statistical comparison
Statistical method not yet structured for this page.
Reporting output
Report representative outputs alongside summary comparisons for Freezing response during final tone-shock pairing (learning assessment), Contextual fear memory (freezing in Context A without shock/tone), Tone-cued fear memory (freezing during tone presentation in Context B).
Source links and direct wording from the methods section for validation and deeper review.
Citation
Zhou Z et al. (2026). Aerobic Exercise Promotes Hippocampal Neurogenesis and Ameliorates Cognitive Dysfunction Induced by Unilateral Labyrinthectomy. CNS Neurosci Ther
“”
“”
“”
“”
Direct vendor pages are linked from the protocol above. This section stays focused on the full comparison view and the prep checklist.
Gather these items before starting the experiment. Check off items as you prepare.
Coulbourn Instruments • H10‐11M‐TC
Coulbourn Instruments • Freezeframe
Not specified • Not specified
Not specified • Not specified
Not specified • Not specified
Use this section as the page quality checkpoint. It keeps section navigation, evidence access, readiness, and verification meaning in one place.
Current status surfaces were computed from experiment data updated Mar 14, 2026.
Source access
Jump back into the original paper or the methods evidence section when you need exact wording, exclusions, or method-specific caveats.
This protocol has structured steps plus evidence quotes, and is ready for canonical sync.
Steps
6
Evidence Quotes
6
Protocol Items
5
Linked Products
0
Canonical Sync
Pending
What this means
The completeness score reflects how much structured protocol data is present: steps, methods evidence, listed materials, linked products, and paper provenance.
Computed from the current experiment record updated Mar 14, 2026.
Canonical Sync shows whether a ConductGraph-backed protocol is available for this experiment route right now. It is a sync-status signal, not a claim that every downstream vendor link or step detail is perfect.
Steps
6
Evidence
6
Specific Products
0/0
Canonical Sync
Pending
What this score means
The verification score reflects evidence coverage, subject detail, paper provenance, step depth, and whether linked products resolve to specific item pages instead of generic searches.
Computed from the current experiment record updated Mar 14, 2026.
A page can have structured steps and still need review when evidence is thin, product links are generic, or canonical protocol coverage is still pending.
What still needs work