Delay and trace fear conditioning in C57BL/6 and DBA/2 mice

Issues of measurement and performance

Megan E. Tipps, Jonathan D. Raybuck, Kari Buck, Kennon (Matt) Lattal

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Strain comparison studies have been critical to the identification of novel genetic and molecular mechanisms in learning and memory. However, even within a single learning paradigm, the behavioral data for the same strain can vary greatly, making it difficult to form meaningful conclusions at both the behavioral and cellular level. In fear conditioning, there is a high level of variability across reports, especially regarding responses to the conditioned stimulus (CS). Here, we compare C57BL/6 and DBA/2 mice using delay fear conditioning, trace fear conditioning, and a nonassociative condition. Our data highlight both the significant strain differences apparent in these fear conditioning paradigms and the significant differences in conditioning type within each strain. We then compare our data to an extensive literature review of delay and trace fear conditioning in these two strains. Finally, we apply a number of commonly used baseline normalization approaches to compare how they alter the reported differences. Our findings highlight three major sources of variability in the fear conditioning literature: CS duration, number of CS presentations, and data normalization to baseline measures.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)380-393
Number of pages14
JournalLearning and Memory
Volume21
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Inbred DBA Mouse
Fear
Learning
Conditioning (Psychology)
Molecular Biology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cognitive Neuroscience
  • Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience
  • Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology

Cite this

Delay and trace fear conditioning in C57BL/6 and DBA/2 mice : Issues of measurement and performance. / Tipps, Megan E.; Raybuck, Jonathan D.; Buck, Kari; Lattal, Kennon (Matt).

In: Learning and Memory, Vol. 21, No. 8, 2014, p. 380-393.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{acecf0973c8c42debbfc00dbcef8482a,
title = "Delay and trace fear conditioning in C57BL/6 and DBA/2 mice: Issues of measurement and performance",
abstract = "Strain comparison studies have been critical to the identification of novel genetic and molecular mechanisms in learning and memory. However, even within a single learning paradigm, the behavioral data for the same strain can vary greatly, making it difficult to form meaningful conclusions at both the behavioral and cellular level. In fear conditioning, there is a high level of variability across reports, especially regarding responses to the conditioned stimulus (CS). Here, we compare C57BL/6 and DBA/2 mice using delay fear conditioning, trace fear conditioning, and a nonassociative condition. Our data highlight both the significant strain differences apparent in these fear conditioning paradigms and the significant differences in conditioning type within each strain. We then compare our data to an extensive literature review of delay and trace fear conditioning in these two strains. Finally, we apply a number of commonly used baseline normalization approaches to compare how they alter the reported differences. Our findings highlight three major sources of variability in the fear conditioning literature: CS duration, number of CS presentations, and data normalization to baseline measures.",
author = "Tipps, {Megan E.} and Raybuck, {Jonathan D.} and Kari Buck and Lattal, {Kennon (Matt)}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1101/lm.035261.114",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "380--393",
journal = "Learning and Memory",
issn = "1072-0502",
publisher = "Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Delay and trace fear conditioning in C57BL/6 and DBA/2 mice

T2 - Issues of measurement and performance

AU - Tipps, Megan E.

AU - Raybuck, Jonathan D.

AU - Buck, Kari

AU - Lattal, Kennon (Matt)

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Strain comparison studies have been critical to the identification of novel genetic and molecular mechanisms in learning and memory. However, even within a single learning paradigm, the behavioral data for the same strain can vary greatly, making it difficult to form meaningful conclusions at both the behavioral and cellular level. In fear conditioning, there is a high level of variability across reports, especially regarding responses to the conditioned stimulus (CS). Here, we compare C57BL/6 and DBA/2 mice using delay fear conditioning, trace fear conditioning, and a nonassociative condition. Our data highlight both the significant strain differences apparent in these fear conditioning paradigms and the significant differences in conditioning type within each strain. We then compare our data to an extensive literature review of delay and trace fear conditioning in these two strains. Finally, we apply a number of commonly used baseline normalization approaches to compare how they alter the reported differences. Our findings highlight three major sources of variability in the fear conditioning literature: CS duration, number of CS presentations, and data normalization to baseline measures.

AB - Strain comparison studies have been critical to the identification of novel genetic and molecular mechanisms in learning and memory. However, even within a single learning paradigm, the behavioral data for the same strain can vary greatly, making it difficult to form meaningful conclusions at both the behavioral and cellular level. In fear conditioning, there is a high level of variability across reports, especially regarding responses to the conditioned stimulus (CS). Here, we compare C57BL/6 and DBA/2 mice using delay fear conditioning, trace fear conditioning, and a nonassociative condition. Our data highlight both the significant strain differences apparent in these fear conditioning paradigms and the significant differences in conditioning type within each strain. We then compare our data to an extensive literature review of delay and trace fear conditioning in these two strains. Finally, we apply a number of commonly used baseline normalization approaches to compare how they alter the reported differences. Our findings highlight three major sources of variability in the fear conditioning literature: CS duration, number of CS presentations, and data normalization to baseline measures.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84906716880&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84906716880&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1101/lm.035261.114

DO - 10.1101/lm.035261.114

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 380

EP - 393

JO - Learning and Memory

JF - Learning and Memory

SN - 1072-0502

IS - 8

ER -