A set of four fear conditioning chambers (Med Associates) was used for training and testing. Chambers were situated in sound-attenuating chests located in an isolated room. Ventilation fans built into the chests provided background noise (65 dB). Rear wall, ceiling, and hinged front door of all chambers were made of plexiglass and two side walls of each chamber were made of aluminum. The floor of each chamber consisted of 36 stainless-steel rods (3.2 mm diameter) spaced 8.0 mm apart. Floors were wired to a shock source and solid-state grid scrambler (Med Associates) for delivery of the footshock (unconditioned stimulus, US). US intensity was calibrated at the beginning of every experimental session. Illumination was provided by a built-in white and NIR light sources. A built-in video camera with a NIR filter was used to record the behavior of the animals. VideoFreeze software (Med Associates) was used to assess freezing behavior in the video recordings. Between tests, the chambers were cleaned with a detergent solution.
Fear conditioning chamber
Manufactured by Med Associates
Sourced in United States
Fear conditioning chambers are specialized laboratory equipment used to study the phenomenon of fear conditioning in experimental research. These chambers provide a controlled environment for researchers to investigate the physiological and behavioral responses of subjects to specific stimuli. The core function of fear conditioning chambers is to enable the controlled presentation of conditioned and unconditioned stimuli, allowing researchers to observe and analyze the learning and memory processes associated with fear responses.
Automatically generated - may contain errors
Lab products found in correlation
Videofreeze software, by Med Associates (8 mentions)
Videofreeze system, by Med Associates (3 mentions)
Nir 022md, by Med Associates (2 mentions)
Video freeze v2, by Med Associates (2 mentions)
Solid state grid scrambler, by Med Associates (1 mentions)
Video freeze, by Med Associates (1 mentions)
Freezeview software, by Harvard Apparatus (1 mentions)
Pf3845, by Cayman Chemical (1 mentions)
Dimethyl sulfoxide (dmso), by Merck Group (1 mentions)
47 protocols using fear conditioning chamber
1
Contextual Fear Conditioning Setup
2
Fear Conditioning in MedAssociates Chambers
3
Auditory Fear Conditioning in Mouse Model
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Mice [C57BL/6; postnatal day (P)42–P70, females] were exposed to an auditory fear conditioning protocol. Mice were placed in fear conditioning chambers (MedAssociates) for 2 min of habituation before trains of auditory tones were presented at 1 Hz (pure tones: 5 or 15 kHz; 5 × 500-ms duration, 500-ms Inter Stimulus Interval (ISI)). The auditory trains were presented either with (CS+) or without (CS–) a 0.6-mA footshock for six times each (5 s each), in a block design (CS+ following the CS– block). The onset of the footshock coincided with the onset of the last tone in the train of tones. After 24 h, CS+ and CS– were presented again in a different context (eight repetitions each, duration 10 s) and freezing behavior were recorded and compared. Freezing scores were automatically measured by the software (MedAssociates) as the percentage of freezing during auditory stimulus presentation, corrected with the baseline values (first 2 min of habituation). Mice that failed to discriminate between the CS– and CS+ (<30% difference in freezing) were excluded from additional experiments and recordings.
4
Fear Conditioning in Mice
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Mice were habituated to fear-conditioning chambers (Med Associates Inc., St Albans, VT) for 10 min each of 2 days prior to fear conditioning. Mice were conditioned to five tones (30 s, 6 kHz, 65–70 db) co-terminating with a 1 s foot shock (0.65 mA, 1 mA for Drd2 expression experiment, or 0.4 mA for mild conditioning).
5
Contextual Fear Conditioning in Rats
6
Fear Conditioning Paradigm in Mice
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Animals (C57: 10 WT and 11 KO from 1 cohort) were tested for fear-induced freezing using Med Associates fear conditioning chambers encased in sound attenuating cubicles optimized for near infrared (NIR) video recording. The training protocol involved a 3 min habituation period in the conditioning box, followed by three rounds of a 30 sec tone + 2 sec/0.75 mA shock + 90 sec rest. The final shock was followed by a 2 min post-training habituation. The following day, mice were returned to the conditioning box and the time spent freezing was measured. Four hours after, the mice were returned to the conditioning boxes with modifications. A white triangular insert was added to change the dimensions of the box and 0.1% acetic acid was sprayed onto the base of the box in order to change the scent of the box. Once again, the time spent freezing over the course of 5 minutes was measured. Freezing was measured using Video Freeze software package analysis of NIR recordings. Two-tailed t-tests were used for statistical analysis. All individual data points are plotted with crossbar denoting mean.
7
Contextual Fear Conditioning in Rodents
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Behavioral training used fear conditioning chambers (30 × 25 × 25 cm, Med-Associates, Inc St. Albans, VT), equipped with a Med-Associates VideoFreeze system. The boxes were enclosed in larger sound-attenuating chambers in an individual, dedicated experimental room. The context was comprised of a chamber with aluminum sidewalls and a white Plexiglas rear wall. The grid floor consisted of 16 stainless steel rods (4.8 mm thick) spaced 1.6 cm apart (center to center). The ceiling was clear Plexiglas with a central hole allowing for passage of fiberoptic cables. Pans underlying each box were sprayed with a thin film of 50% Windex solution to provide the context with a scent. Chambers were individually lit from above by white lights and cleaned with 50% Windex in between trials. Fans mounted above each chamber provided background noise (60 dB). The experimental room was brightly lit with an overhead white light. Animals were kept in a holding room and individually transported to the experimental room in their home cage. On the first day of training, animals were transported to the habituation cart for cable attachment before conditioning, and returned to the cart for cable disconnection afterward. Chambers were cleaned with a Virkon solution following each day of behavioral testing.
8
Cue-Dependent Fear Conditioning and Extinction
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Animals were tested for cue dependent fear conditioning and extinction. All groups received 5 CS tones (30s, 6 kHz, 74dB) co-terminating with US shocks (500 ms, 1 mA) with a 90 second inter trial interval (ITI) [26] (link), [31] (link). Average freezing behavior from each of the 30 second tone – shock trials during training was compared across groups. During extinction training and testing, mice received 15 or 30 CS tones (30s, 6 kHz, 74dB, 90 second ITI) in a novel context that differed in size, shape, olfactory cue and lighting from the training context. Fear conditioning and extinction were conducted in Med Associates fear conditioning chambers. Actimetrics video-based Freezeframe version 3 software was used to detect and analyze freezing behavior from video.
9
Automated Fear Conditioning Assessments
10
Fear Conditioning Behavioral Paradigm
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Behavioral training used fear conditioning chambers (30 × 25×25 cm, Med-Associates, Inc St. Albans, VT), equipped with a Med-Associates VideoFreeze system. The boxes were enclosed in larger sound-attenuating chambers. Aspects of the boxes were varied to create two distinct contexts. The pre-exposure and testing context were composed of a white Plexiglas floor insert and a curved white Plexiglas wall insert with a hole over the wall speaker, making the rear walls of the chamber into a semi-circle. The ceiling and front door were composed of clear Plexiglas. The overhead light was off and the box was cleaned with 1% acetic acid. The conditioning context was comprised of a rectangular chamber with aluminum sidewalls and a white Plexiglas rear wall. The grid floor consisted of 16 stainless steel rods (4.8 mm thick) spaced 1.6 cm apart (center to center). Pans underlying each box were sprayed and cleaned between mice. Fans mounted above each chamber provided background noise (65 dB). The experimental room was brightly lit with an overhead white light. Animals were kept in a holding room and individually transported to the experimental room in their home cage. Chambers were cleaned with soap and water following each day of behavioral testing.
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required
Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!