The largest database of trusted experimental protocols

Graphic state 4

Manufactured by Harvard Apparatus
Sourced in United States

Graphic State 4 is a data acquisition and analysis software developed by Harvard Apparatus. The software is designed to provide users with the ability to capture and analyze data from various laboratory equipment and instruments.

Automatically generated - may contain errors

9 protocols using graphic state 4

1

Single-Hole Nose-Poke Operant Chamber Protocol

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The 1-CSRTT was conducted in a single-hole nose-poke operant chamber (12 inches wide × 10 inches deep × 12 inches high) with a non-shock grid floor, enclosed within a sound attenuating cabinet (23 inches wide × 24 inches high × 20 inches deep) (Coulbourn Instruments Whitehall, PA, USA). The operant chamber was equipped with a house light and a food magazine that delivered 45 mg dustless sugar pellets (Bioserv) positioned on the wall opposite the stimulus hole (Fig. 1A). Both the stimulus hole and food magazine were equipped with a sensor to detect nose poke entries. The chambers were controlled by a Habitest Linc Tower with Graphic State 4 software (Coulbourn Instruments).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
2

Rat Operant Conditioning in 5-CSRTT

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
5-CSRTT was conducted in rat operant boxes (Coulbourn Instruments, Whitehall, PA, USA), which had five nose ports on the front panel, grid flooring, a back house light, and a food magazine port in the rear of the box. Each port was equipped with a light to serve as a signal and photobeam sensors to record entrances into the ports. Each box was stored within a sound-attenuating chamber with a fan for aeration and noise dampening. The input and output from each operant box were transmitted to Graphic State 4 software (Coulbourn Instruments, Whitehall, PA, USA) on an Optiplex 9020 computer.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
3

Rat Behavioral Test Chamber Setup

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Testing was conducted in eight identical standard rat behavioral test chambers (Coulbourn Instruments) with metal front and back walls, transparent Plexiglas side walls, and a floor composed of steel rods (0.4 cm in diameter) spaced 1.1 cm apart. Each test chamber was housed in a sound-attenuating cubicle and was equipped with a recessed food pellet delivery trough located 2 cm above the floor in the center of the front wall. The trough was fitted with a photobeam to detect head entries and a 1.12 W lamp for illumination. Food rewards consisted of 45 mg soy-free food pellets (5TUL, 1811155; Test Diet, Richmond, IN, USA). Two retractable levers were positioned to the left and right of the food trough (11 cm above the floor). An additional 1.12 W house light was mounted near the top of the rear wall of the sound-attenuating cubicle. A computer interfaced with the behavioral test chambers and equipped with Graphic State 4 software (Coulbourn Instruments) was used to control experiments and collect data.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
4

Attentional Set-Shift Task in Rats

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The attentional set-shift task (AST) was conducted in rat operant boxes (Coulbourn Instruments, Whitehall, PA, USA), containing a food magazine port between two levers, which were located below two lights on the front panel. A house light was positioned on the rear wall. Operant boxes were individually stored within a sound-attenuating chamber with a fan for aeration and noise dampening. The input and output from each box were transmitted to Graphic State 4 software (Coulbourn Instruments) on an Optiplex 9020 computer.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
5

Operant Conditioning Apparatus Setup

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Behavioral testing was conducted in eight standard operant chambers (Coulbourn Instruments). Chambers were contained in sound-attenuating cubicles, and were computer controlled through Graphic State 4.0 software (Coulbourn Instruments). Locomotor activity was monitored via infrared motion detectors installed on the ceilings of the chambers. Each operant chamber was equipped with a food trough containing a photobeam sensor to detect nosepokes into the trough, two retractable levers (one on each side of the food trough), a feeder installed on the outside wall of the chamber and connected to the food trough to deliver 45 mg purified ingredient rodent food pellets (Test Diet 5TUL), and a stainless steel floor grate connected to a shock generator that could deliver scrambled footshocks. Each sound-attenuating cubicle included a house light mounted on the rear wall (outside of the operant chamber).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
6

Operant Conditioning Chamber Behavioral Testing

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Behavioral testing was conducted in 12 operant test chambers (Coulbourn Instruments), housed in sound-attenuating cabinets. Each chamber contained a food pellet delivery trough equipped with a photobeam to detect entries and a 1.12 W lamp to illuminate the trough, into which 45 mg soy-free food pellets (TestDiet; 5TUM) could be dispensed. The trough was centrally located in the front of the chamber and ∼2 cm above the floor. Each chamber contained two retractable levers 11 cm above the floor on both the left and right sides of the food trough. An additional 1.12 W house light was mounted to the top of the rear wall of the cabinets. The floor of each chamber was composed of a row of stainless steel bars coupled to a shock generator (Coulbourn Instruments), which was used to administer scrambled footshocks. An activity monitor was mounted on the ceiling of the chamber to detect locomotor activity through the use of an array of infrared detectors. The test chambers were controlled via Graphic State 4.0 software (Coulbourn Instruments), which allowed programmable steps for each task protocol and collection of data from the operant chambers. In each cohort, the order in which young and aged rats were tested in each chamber was counterbalanced, and chambers were cleaned with dilute chlorhexidine between successive rats.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
7

Delayed Response Task in Operant Chambers

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The apparatus and procedures for the delayed response task were identical to those reported previously by our lab (Beas et al., 2013). Testing was performed in 12 identical operant test chambers (Coulbourn Instruments) housed in sound attenuating cabinets. The front wall of each chamber contained a food pellet delivery trough. The trough was located 2 cm above the floor and contained a photobeam to detect nosepoke entries into the trough as well as a 1.12 W lamp to illuminate the trough. A retractable lever (11 cm from the floor) was located on either side of the trough. The floor of the chamber was composed of stainless steel rods. A 1.12 W house light was mounted on the rear wall of each sound attenuating cabinet. Each chamber had an infrared activity monitor mounted on the ceiling, which allowed for locomotor activity assessment during the task. All chambers were interfaced with a computer running Graphic State 4.0 software (Coulbourn Instruments) to allow for experiment control and data collection.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
8

Spatial Memory and Avoidance Learning

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Animals of the second cohort were tested for their performance on both Barnes maze and passive avoidance tasks. To assess spatial reference memory, mice were trained on Barnes maze for 5 days before surgery, as previously described [19 (link)], then tested again on days 3 and 7 after reperfusion for the time needed to escape into the hole, the number of error pokes, and the length of the animal’s path prior to escape. An automated passive avoidance apparatus (Coulbourn Instruments) was used to assess avoidance learning with automated sensing and shock systems (GraphicState® 4, Coulbourn Instruments). The apparatus included a double compartment chamber with one lit and one dark compartment. Mice were allowed to explore the chamber for 5 min on habituation phase. Following habituation, the mice were given one trial where a shock is associated with the dark side, allowed 48 h of rest, and then tested for retention measured as latency to enter the dark side. Testing was repeated on days 3 and 7 post-reperfusion with no shock delivered during test phase.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
9

Auditory Fear Conditioning in Mice

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
On the rst day, each mouse was placed in chamber A for 20 min for habituation. This chamber has opaque black plastic walls and an iron mesh oor that could produce a foot shock. On the second day, the mouse was acclimated in chamber A for 180 s. Then, the mouse was given an auditory CS consisting of both 30-second pure tones (2 kHz, 80 dB SPL) and a 2-second foot shock (0.5 mA) at the 28th second.
The controls were given an auditory unconditioned stimulus (US) of only 30-second pure tones. In each training, the CS or US was repeated 4 times at 80-second intervals. On the third day, an experiment was performed to determine whether fear memory was retained. The mice were rst placed in chamber B, which was identical to chamber A but with brown wooden walls and a soft wood oor, for 180 s for habituation. Then, an auditory stimulus was given for 180 s without a foot shock. The successful AFC model mice would exhibit stronger respiratory motion and freezing, which was de ned as having no limb mobility and automatically scored using Graphic State 4 (Coulbourn Instruments, USA).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand

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

Sign up now

Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!