Source Paper
No effect of partial reinforcement on fear extinction learning and memory in C57BL/6J mice
Su CJ, Fukunaga Y, Penna S, Cazares VA
Learn Mem • 2025
Source Paper
Su CJ, Fukunaga Y, Penna S, Cazares VA
Learn Mem • 2025
Objective: To measure Pavlovian fear conditioning and extinction learning using conditioned fear responses to tone stimuli
This is a Pavlovian Fear Conditioning protocol using mouse as the model organism. The procedure involves 6 procedural steps, 9 equipment items, 3 materials. Extracted from a 2025 paper published in Learn Mem.
Model and subjects
mouse • C57BL/6J • male and female • not specified • not specified
Study window
~4.3 week study window
Core workflow
Housing and environment setup • Fear conditioning training • Context A setup for fear conditioning
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.
House mice in groups of up to 6 same-sex animals with ad libitum food and water access in temperature-controlled facility at 22°C with 35-45% humidity on 12/12h light/dark cycle
“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”
Conduct delayed fear conditioning in context A with tone CS (10 or 25 sec, 50 db, 4.0 kHz) immediately preceding footshocks (0.75 or 0.3 mA). Use various CS:US pairing ratios including 3:3, 6:6 for consistent reinforcement or 6:3, 12:6, 30:3 for partial reinforcement
“All experiments consisted of one or 2 days of delayed FC, during which 10 or 25 sec tones (50 db, 4.0 kHz), serving as conditioned stimuli (CS), immediately preceded 0.75 or 0.3 mA footshocks”
Set up context A with metal rod floor grid, clean with 30% white vinegar solution, use standard walls and lights on
“FC training took place in context A: a metal rod floor grid, scented and cleaned with 30% white vinegar in water, standard walls (see apparatus details above), and lights on”
Conduct fear extinction training in context B for 1-3 consecutive days with 12 unreinforced CS exposures per day
“Following FC, mice received between one and three consecutive days of FE training, each day of which consisted of 12 unreinforced exposures to the CS”
Set up context B with semicircular white acrylic wall and white acrylic flooring, clean with 75% ethanol solution, lights off
“FE and the 4 CS tone-tests were conducted in context B: a semicircular white acrylic wall and white acrylic flooring, scented and cleaned with 75% ethanol in water, lights off”
Test recent and remote fear extinction memory by exposing mice to 4 CS tones at 2 and 30 days after extinction training
“To assess the strength of recent and remote FE memory, mice were exposed to four CS at 2 and 30 days after extinction training”
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 measure Pavlovian fear conditioning and extinction learning using conditioned fear responses to tone stimuli
Objective
To measure Pavlovian fear conditioning and extinction learning using conditioned fear responses to tone stimuli
Subjects
From papermouse • C57BL/6J • male and female • not specified
Sample count
From papernot specified
Housing and environment setup (ongoing)
Fear conditioning training (1 or 2 days)
Context A setup for fear conditioning (not specified)
Fear extinction training (between one and three consecutive days)
Percent time freezing during CS presentation
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
Motion index based on pixel intensity variance
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
Fear conditioning acquisition curves
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
Fear extinction acquisition and retention
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
Percent time freezing during CS presentation
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
Motion index based on pixel intensity variance
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
Fear conditioning acquisition curves
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
Fear extinction acquisition and retention
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: Percent time freezing during CS presentation; Motion index based on pixel intensity variance; Fear conditioning acquisition curves; Fear extinction acquisition and retention.
Statistical comparison
Statistical method not yet structured for this page.
Reporting output
Report representative outputs alongside summary comparisons for Percent time freezing during CS presentation, Motion index based on pixel intensity variance, Fear conditioning acquisition curves, Fear extinction acquisition and retention.
Source links and direct wording from the methods section for validation and deeper review.
Citation
Su CJ et al. (2025). No effect of partial reinforcement on fear extinction learning and memory in C57BL/6J mice. Learn Mem
“”
“”
“”
“”
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.
Med-Associates • VFC2-USB-M
not specified • not specified
not specified • not specified
not specified • not specified
not specified • not specified
not specified • not specified
Med-Associates • not specified
not specified • not specified
not specified • not specified
The Jackson Laboratory • 000664
not specified • not specified
not specified • not specified
1 item with ReplicateScience direct pages
Estimated: $5,900.00
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
12
Linked Products
1
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
1/1
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.