No effect of partial reinforcement on fear extinction learning and memory in C57BL/6J mice methods

[
  {
    "@context": "https://schema.org",
    "@type": "HowTo",
    "name": "No effect of partial reinforcement on fear extinction learning and memory in C57BL/6J mice methods",
    "description": "Evidence-backed execution summary for No effect of partial reinforcement on fear extinction learning and memory in C57BL/6J mice methods from No effect of partial reinforcement on fear extinction learning and memory in C57BL/6J mice.",
    "totalTime": "PT44160M",
    "step": [
      {
        "@type": "HowToStep",
        "position": 1,
        "name": "No effect of partial reinforcement on FE acquisition with increased CS:US trials during cued-FC",
        "text": "Because we did not observe a PREE, we tested whether an increased number of CS:US trials was necessary to reveal extinction resistance using partial reinforcement, as this has been shown to affect PREE ( ). To do this, we repeated the experiments (as in A) using the 10 sec CS duration but doubled the number of CS:US trials (12:6 CS:US pairs for 50% contingency; 6:6 CS:US pairs for 100% contingency) ( A). All statistical analyses were performed as in."
      },
      {
        "@type": "HowToStep",
        "position": 2,
        "name": "No effect of partial reinforcement on FE acquisition with increased CS:US trials during cued-FC",
        "text": "Increasing CS:US trials during FC does not result in PREE. ( A ) Experimental procedures were carried out as in A except for the number of CS:US trials per group. The group exposed to consistent reinforcement (100%) received 6CS:6US pairs, while the partial reinforcement group (50%) received 12CS:6US pairs. ( B 1 ) The effect of partial reinforcement on within-session FC acquisition. Partial reinforcement (50%) resulted in higher levels of freezing than consistent reinforcement (100%) during CS:US pairings 2 ( P = 0.044), 3 ( P < 0.001), and 6 ( P = 0.026) on FC1. There was no effect of contingency on FC2 ( P > 0.05). Both contingency groups increased freezing relative to baseline ( P < 0.001) on both days. ( B 2 ) The effect of partial reinforcement on between-session FC acquisition. Conditioned freezing was higher overall in the 50% contingency group ( P = 0.048), and both groups ex..."
      },
      {
        "@type": "HowToStep",
        "position": 3,
        "name": "No effect of partial reinforcement on FE acquisition with increased CS:US trials during cued-FC",
        "text": "On all days of FE, all groups showed significant reductions in conditioned freezing within-session as a function of CS-bin (E1, F (2.77, 166.14) = 13.77; F (2.59, 155.21) = 51.59; F (2.90, 174.11) = 74.37, P < 0.001) ( D 1 ). We did not observe differences in freezing between reinforcement contingency groups at any CS bin. In addition, contingency did not affect the slope of FE acquisition on any FE day ( P > 0.05). Similarly, when evaluating differences in between-session consolidation, we found that freezing reduced as a function of FE day ( F [1.92, 115.35] = 33.79, P < 0.001) and that there was no effect of contingency ( D 2 ). Finally, we assessed for differences in FE recall 2 and 30 day tone tests ( E). The results showed that all mice exhibited greater conditioned freezing at 30 day compared to the 2 day tone test ( t [21] = 7.212, P < 0.001) and we also observed greater freez..."
      },
      {
        "@type": "HowToStep",
        "position": 4,
        "name": "Lower US strength (0.3 mA) and partial reinforcement alter fear learning but do not affect FE",
        "text": "The previous experiments failed to establish a PREE in fear learning in mice despite varying CS duration and the number of trials. One possible explanation for this was that the US strength used in previous protocols (0.75 mA) may have resulted in a ceiling effect, masking any effects of partial reinforcement on extinction. To avert this, we implemented a weaker US footshock (0.3 mA; ). To further maximize the possibility to detect PREE, we also widened the range of contingencies in our study by introducing a 10% contingency protocol ( A; ). Our experimental design incorporated three groups with varying contingencies: a consistent reinforcement group (a 100% contingency: 3CS:3US pairing) and two partial reinforcement groups: a 50% contingency (6CS:3US pairing) and a 10% contingency (30CS:3US). All statistical analyses were performed as in and."
      },
      {
        "@type": "HowToStep",
        "position": 5,
        "name": "Lower US strength (0.3 mA) and partial reinforcement alter fear learning but do not affect FE",
        "text": "Lower US strength (0.3 mA) and partial reinforcement alter fear learning but do not affect FE. ( A ) Mice were placed into an FC chamber (context A) across 2 days and received CS-tones that were either paired or unpaired with a 0.30 mA US footshock. One group of mice received consistent reinforcement (100%: 3CS:3US,) while two other groups received partial reinforcement (50%: 6CS:3US; 10%: 30CS:3US). ( B 1 ) The effect of partial reinforcement (50%; 10%) on within-session FC acquisition. Conditioned freezing increased across both FC trials ( P < 0.001). Partial reinforcement (50% and 10%) led to decreased freezing at CS2 ( P < 0.001) and CS3 ( P = 0.007) relative to CS1 during FC2. ( B 2 ) The effect of partial reinforcement (50%; 10%) on between-session FC acquisition. All conditions displayed increased freezing on FC2 relative to FC1 ( P < 0.001). The consistently reinforced (100%)..."
      },
      {
        "@type": "HowToStep",
        "position": 6,
        "name": "Lower US strength (0.3 mA) and partial reinforcement alter fear learning but do not affect FE",
        "text": "First, in fear acquisition, we found a main effect of CS on within-session freezing on FC1 ( F [1.90, 39.94] = 75.96, P < 0.001 ( B 1 )), whereas on FC2, we observed main effects of CS and reinforcement contingency ( F [1.72, 36.08] = 15.27, P < 0.001; F (2, 21) = 5.77, P = 0.01, respectively). Post hoc contrasts demonstrated that consistent reinforcement (100%) led to significantly increased freezing on CS2 and CS3 (see B 1; ). Next, analysis of between-session freezing ( B 2 ) showed a significant interaction between FC training day and contingency ( F [2, 21] = 15.47, P = 0.012). All groups demonstrated significantly increased freezing on FC2 relative to FC1 ( P < 0.01). In addition, groups receiving 100% reinforcement exhibited higher freezing levels on FC2 compared to the partial reinforcement groups (10, 50%, P < 0.05). When examining FC recall ( C), we found that only the 50%..."
      },
      {
        "@type": "HowToStep",
        "position": 7,
        "name": "Lower US strength (0.3 mA) and partial reinforcement alter fear learning but do not affect FE",
        "text": "As before, we evaluated the effects of the reinforcement contingency on FE acquisition within- ( D 1 ) and between-sessions ( D 2 ) for each FE day. On FE1, we found a main effect of CS-bin on within-session freezing ( F [2.24, 46.97] = 12.81, P < 0.001) but no effect of contingency ( P = 0.244). Similarly, when we compared the slope of FE acquisition on FE1, we found no effect of contingency ( P = 0.238). On FE2, the analysis results showed a significant interaction between reinforcement contingency and CS-bin ( F [4.42, 46.39] = 2.69, P < 0.038). This interaction was driven by the fact that freezing levels on CS bin 1 were significantly higher in the 50% reinforcement contingency group relative to 100% and 10% ( P = 0.05). In addition, the 50% group exhibited lower freezing levels on CS bins 2-4 compared with CS bin 1 ( P < 0.01); the other reinforcement contingencies did not..."
      },
      {
        "@type": "HowToStep",
        "position": 8,
        "name": "Materials and Methods",
        "text": "All experiments were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Williams College and were performed in accordance with the guidelines described in the National Institutes of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Male and female C67BL/6J mice were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory (000664) or bred in-house using experimentally naive breeders from the same source. Up to six same sex mice were group-housed in large (11 × 9 × 6.5 in) cages with ad libitum access to food and water. The animal colony was maintained in a temperature-controlled facility (22°C, 35%-45% humidity) on a 12/12 h light/dark cycle. All behavioral experiments were done in the daytime during the light phase of the cycle."
      }
    ],
    "tool": [
      {
        "@type": "HowToTool",
        "name": "Lower US strength (0.3 mA) and partial reinforcement alter fear learning but do not affect FE"
      },
      {
        "@type": "HowToTool",
        "name": "Pavlovian fear learning apparatus"
      },
      {
        "@type": "HowToTool",
        "name": "Behavioral testing"
      },
      {
        "@type": "HowToTool",
        "name": "Data analysis and statistics"
      }
    ],
    "supply": [],
    "isBasedOn": {
      "@type": "ScholarlyArticle",
      "headline": "No effect of partial reinforcement on fear extinction learning and memory in C57BL/6J mice",
      "datePublished": "2025",
      "author": [
        {
          "@type": "Person",
          "name": "Chi Jiun Su"
        },
        {
          "@type": "Person",
          "name": "Yuichi Fukunaga"
        },
        {
          "@type": "Person",
          "name": "Suzanne Penna"
        },
        {
          "@type": "Person",
          "name": "Victor Alexis Cazares"
        }
      ],
      "identifier": "10.1101/lm.054033.124"
    }
  },
  {
    "@context": "https://schema.org",
    "@type": "BreadcrumbList",
    "itemListElement": [
      {
        "@type": "ListItem",
        "position": 1,
        "name": "Experiments",
        "item": "https://replicatescience.com/experiments"
      },
      {
        "@type": "ListItem",
        "position": 2,
        "name": "No effect of partial reinforcement on fear extinction learning and memory in C57BL/6J mice methods",
        "item": "https://replicatescience.com/experiments/no-effect-of-partial-reinforcement-on-fear-extinction-learning-and-memory-in-c57bl-6j-mice-methods-chi-jiun-su-pmc11852914/no-effect-of-partial-reinforcement-on-fear-extinction-learning-and-memory-in-c57"
      }
    ]
  }
]