Review



videofreezetm video fear conditioning program  (Med Associates Inc)


Bioz Verified Symbol Med Associates Inc is a verified supplier
Bioz Manufacturer Symbol Med Associates Inc manufactures this product  
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
    • 96
      Buy from Supplier

    Structured Review

    Med Associates Inc videofreezetm video fear conditioning program
    Videofreezetm Video Fear Conditioning Program, supplied by Med Associates Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 96/100, based on 687 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/videofreezetm video fear conditioning program/product/Med Associates Inc
    Average 96 stars, based on 687 article reviews
    videofreezetm video fear conditioning program - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
    96/100 stars

    Images



    Similar Products

    videofreezetm video fear conditioning program  (Med Associates Inc)
    96
    Med Associates Inc videofreezetm video fear conditioning program
    Videofreezetm Video Fear Conditioning Program, supplied by Med Associates Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 96/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/videofreezetm video fear conditioning program/product/Med Associates Inc
    Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    videofreezetm video fear conditioning program - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
    96/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    conditioning chamber  (UGO Basile S.R.L)
    96
    UGO Basile S.R.L conditioning chamber
    Fear <t>conditioning</t> increases pip-induced local field potential (LFP) in control but not in Htr3a-KO during retrieval. A) Schema of the experimental setup for intracerebral recordings in head-fixed mice in the prelimbic cortex (PrL), infralimbic cortex (IL) and basolateral amygdala (BLA). B) Representative examples (1 mouse per condition) of pip-evoked potentials (1-100 Hz), z-normalized to 500ms pre-pip period, in WT and Htr3a-KO mice. Mean of all CS trains (420 pips, solid lines) ± SEM. C) Average pip-evoked LFP ± SEM across the 30 pips of each CS train in WT mice (n = 8; LFP data of 4/12 WT mice were excluded due to poor signal quality) in the PrL, IL, and BLA during habituation and retrieval days. Data are shown across the 14 CS trains (labelled t1 to t14) and were z-normalized to the 500 ms pre-pip baseline. In the PrL, there was a main effect of Days (p = 0.049) and of CS train (p = 0.002). In the IL, there was a main effect of days (p = 0.04), whereas the effect of CS train was not significant (p = 0.77). In the BLA, there was a main effect of days (p = 0.009) and of CS train (p < 0.001). Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post-hoc tests (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001). D) Pip-evoked responses in the Htr3a-KO mice (n = 8), no main effects were detected. E) Averaged LFP response of the first 3 CS during habituation and retrieval days, z-normalized to the 500ms pre-pip-onset in WT (main effect of Days: p =0.004, Bonferroni multiple comparison for PrL, IL and BLA: all p < 0.001) and Htr3a-KO (main effect of Days: p = 0.201). F) LFP responses of the first 3 CS in all mice during habituation (main effect of genotype: p = 0.275) and during retrieval (main effect of genotype: p = 0.038, Bonferroni multiple comparison for PrL: p = 0.489, IL: p = 0.097, BLA: *p = 0.043).
    Conditioning Chamber, supplied by UGO Basile S.R.L, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 96/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/conditioning chamber/product/UGO Basile S.R.L
    Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    conditioning chamber - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
    96/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    fear conditioning chamber  (Med Associates Inc)
    96
    Med Associates Inc fear conditioning chamber
    Fear <t>conditioning</t> increases pip-induced local field potential (LFP) in control but not in Htr3a-KO during retrieval. A) Schema of the experimental setup for intracerebral recordings in head-fixed mice in the prelimbic cortex (PrL), infralimbic cortex (IL) and basolateral amygdala (BLA). B) Representative examples (1 mouse per condition) of pip-evoked potentials (1-100 Hz), z-normalized to 500ms pre-pip period, in WT and Htr3a-KO mice. Mean of all CS trains (420 pips, solid lines) ± SEM. C) Average pip-evoked LFP ± SEM across the 30 pips of each CS train in WT mice (n = 8; LFP data of 4/12 WT mice were excluded due to poor signal quality) in the PrL, IL, and BLA during habituation and retrieval days. Data are shown across the 14 CS trains (labelled t1 to t14) and were z-normalized to the 500 ms pre-pip baseline. In the PrL, there was a main effect of Days (p = 0.049) and of CS train (p = 0.002). In the IL, there was a main effect of days (p = 0.04), whereas the effect of CS train was not significant (p = 0.77). In the BLA, there was a main effect of days (p = 0.009) and of CS train (p < 0.001). Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post-hoc tests (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001). D) Pip-evoked responses in the Htr3a-KO mice (n = 8), no main effects were detected. E) Averaged LFP response of the first 3 CS during habituation and retrieval days, z-normalized to the 500ms pre-pip-onset in WT (main effect of Days: p =0.004, Bonferroni multiple comparison for PrL, IL and BLA: all p < 0.001) and Htr3a-KO (main effect of Days: p = 0.201). F) LFP responses of the first 3 CS in all mice during habituation (main effect of genotype: p = 0.275) and during retrieval (main effect of genotype: p = 0.038, Bonferroni multiple comparison for PrL: p = 0.489, IL: p = 0.097, BLA: *p = 0.043).
    Fear Conditioning Chamber, supplied by Med Associates Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 96/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/fear conditioning chamber/product/Med Associates Inc
    Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    fear conditioning chamber - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
    96/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    two lever operant conditioning chamber  (Med Associates Inc)
    97
    Med Associates Inc two lever operant conditioning chamber
    Fear <t>conditioning</t> increases pip-induced local field potential (LFP) in control but not in Htr3a-KO during retrieval. A) Schema of the experimental setup for intracerebral recordings in head-fixed mice in the prelimbic cortex (PrL), infralimbic cortex (IL) and basolateral amygdala (BLA). B) Representative examples (1 mouse per condition) of pip-evoked potentials (1-100 Hz), z-normalized to 500ms pre-pip period, in WT and Htr3a-KO mice. Mean of all CS trains (420 pips, solid lines) ± SEM. C) Average pip-evoked LFP ± SEM across the 30 pips of each CS train in WT mice (n = 8; LFP data of 4/12 WT mice were excluded due to poor signal quality) in the PrL, IL, and BLA during habituation and retrieval days. Data are shown across the 14 CS trains (labelled t1 to t14) and were z-normalized to the 500 ms pre-pip baseline. In the PrL, there was a main effect of Days (p = 0.049) and of CS train (p = 0.002). In the IL, there was a main effect of days (p = 0.04), whereas the effect of CS train was not significant (p = 0.77). In the BLA, there was a main effect of days (p = 0.009) and of CS train (p < 0.001). Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post-hoc tests (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001). D) Pip-evoked responses in the Htr3a-KO mice (n = 8), no main effects were detected. E) Averaged LFP response of the first 3 CS during habituation and retrieval days, z-normalized to the 500ms pre-pip-onset in WT (main effect of Days: p =0.004, Bonferroni multiple comparison for PrL, IL and BLA: all p < 0.001) and Htr3a-KO (main effect of Days: p = 0.201). F) LFP responses of the first 3 CS in all mice during habituation (main effect of genotype: p = 0.275) and during retrieval (main effect of genotype: p = 0.038, Bonferroni multiple comparison for PrL: p = 0.489, IL: p = 0.097, BLA: *p = 0.043).
    Two Lever Operant Conditioning Chamber, supplied by Med Associates Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 97/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/two lever operant conditioning chamber/product/Med Associates Inc
    Average 97 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    two lever operant conditioning chamber - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
    97/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    operant conditioning test chamber  (Med Associates Inc)
    97
    Med Associates Inc operant conditioning test chamber
    Fear <t>conditioning</t> increases pip-induced local field potential (LFP) in control but not in Htr3a-KO during retrieval. A) Schema of the experimental setup for intracerebral recordings in head-fixed mice in the prelimbic cortex (PrL), infralimbic cortex (IL) and basolateral amygdala (BLA). B) Representative examples (1 mouse per condition) of pip-evoked potentials (1-100 Hz), z-normalized to 500ms pre-pip period, in WT and Htr3a-KO mice. Mean of all CS trains (420 pips, solid lines) ± SEM. C) Average pip-evoked LFP ± SEM across the 30 pips of each CS train in WT mice (n = 8; LFP data of 4/12 WT mice were excluded due to poor signal quality) in the PrL, IL, and BLA during habituation and retrieval days. Data are shown across the 14 CS trains (labelled t1 to t14) and were z-normalized to the 500 ms pre-pip baseline. In the PrL, there was a main effect of Days (p = 0.049) and of CS train (p = 0.002). In the IL, there was a main effect of days (p = 0.04), whereas the effect of CS train was not significant (p = 0.77). In the BLA, there was a main effect of days (p = 0.009) and of CS train (p < 0.001). Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post-hoc tests (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001). D) Pip-evoked responses in the Htr3a-KO mice (n = 8), no main effects were detected. E) Averaged LFP response of the first 3 CS during habituation and retrieval days, z-normalized to the 500ms pre-pip-onset in WT (main effect of Days: p =0.004, Bonferroni multiple comparison for PrL, IL and BLA: all p < 0.001) and Htr3a-KO (main effect of Days: p = 0.201). F) LFP responses of the first 3 CS in all mice during habituation (main effect of genotype: p = 0.275) and during retrieval (main effect of genotype: p = 0.038, Bonferroni multiple comparison for PrL: p = 0.489, IL: p = 0.097, BLA: *p = 0.043).
    Operant Conditioning Test Chamber, supplied by Med Associates Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 97/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/operant conditioning test chamber/product/Med Associates Inc
    Average 97 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    operant conditioning test chamber - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
    97/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    conditioning chamber  (Med Associates Inc)
    96
    Med Associates Inc conditioning chamber
    Fear <t>conditioning</t> increases pip-induced local field potential (LFP) in control but not in Htr3a-KO during retrieval. A) Schema of the experimental setup for intracerebral recordings in head-fixed mice in the prelimbic cortex (PrL), infralimbic cortex (IL) and basolateral amygdala (BLA). B) Representative examples (1 mouse per condition) of pip-evoked potentials (1-100 Hz), z-normalized to 500ms pre-pip period, in WT and Htr3a-KO mice. Mean of all CS trains (420 pips, solid lines) ± SEM. C) Average pip-evoked LFP ± SEM across the 30 pips of each CS train in WT mice (n = 8; LFP data of 4/12 WT mice were excluded due to poor signal quality) in the PrL, IL, and BLA during habituation and retrieval days. Data are shown across the 14 CS trains (labelled t1 to t14) and were z-normalized to the 500 ms pre-pip baseline. In the PrL, there was a main effect of Days (p = 0.049) and of CS train (p = 0.002). In the IL, there was a main effect of days (p = 0.04), whereas the effect of CS train was not significant (p = 0.77). In the BLA, there was a main effect of days (p = 0.009) and of CS train (p < 0.001). Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post-hoc tests (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001). D) Pip-evoked responses in the Htr3a-KO mice (n = 8), no main effects were detected. E) Averaged LFP response of the first 3 CS during habituation and retrieval days, z-normalized to the 500ms pre-pip-onset in WT (main effect of Days: p =0.004, Bonferroni multiple comparison for PrL, IL and BLA: all p < 0.001) and Htr3a-KO (main effect of Days: p = 0.201). F) LFP responses of the first 3 CS in all mice during habituation (main effect of genotype: p = 0.275) and during retrieval (main effect of genotype: p = 0.038, Bonferroni multiple comparison for PrL: p = 0.489, IL: p = 0.097, BLA: *p = 0.043).
    Conditioning Chamber, supplied by Med Associates Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 96/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/conditioning chamber/product/Med Associates Inc
    Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    conditioning chamber - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
    96/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    two lever operant conditioning chambers  (Med Associates Inc)
    97
    Med Associates Inc two lever operant conditioning chambers
    Fear <t>conditioning</t> increases pip-induced local field potential (LFP) in control but not in Htr3a-KO during retrieval. A) Schema of the experimental setup for intracerebral recordings in head-fixed mice in the prelimbic cortex (PrL), infralimbic cortex (IL) and basolateral amygdala (BLA). B) Representative examples (1 mouse per condition) of pip-evoked potentials (1-100 Hz), z-normalized to 500ms pre-pip period, in WT and Htr3a-KO mice. Mean of all CS trains (420 pips, solid lines) ± SEM. C) Average pip-evoked LFP ± SEM across the 30 pips of each CS train in WT mice (n = 8; LFP data of 4/12 WT mice were excluded due to poor signal quality) in the PrL, IL, and BLA during habituation and retrieval days. Data are shown across the 14 CS trains (labelled t1 to t14) and were z-normalized to the 500 ms pre-pip baseline. In the PrL, there was a main effect of Days (p = 0.049) and of CS train (p = 0.002). In the IL, there was a main effect of days (p = 0.04), whereas the effect of CS train was not significant (p = 0.77). In the BLA, there was a main effect of days (p = 0.009) and of CS train (p < 0.001). Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post-hoc tests (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001). D) Pip-evoked responses in the Htr3a-KO mice (n = 8), no main effects were detected. E) Averaged LFP response of the first 3 CS during habituation and retrieval days, z-normalized to the 500ms pre-pip-onset in WT (main effect of Days: p =0.004, Bonferroni multiple comparison for PrL, IL and BLA: all p < 0.001) and Htr3a-KO (main effect of Days: p = 0.201). F) LFP responses of the first 3 CS in all mice during habituation (main effect of genotype: p = 0.275) and during retrieval (main effect of genotype: p = 0.038, Bonferroni multiple comparison for PrL: p = 0.489, IL: p = 0.097, BLA: *p = 0.043).
    Two Lever Operant Conditioning Chambers, supplied by Med Associates Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 97/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/two lever operant conditioning chambers/product/Med Associates Inc
    Average 97 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    two lever operant conditioning chambers - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
    97/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results


    Fear conditioning increases pip-induced local field potential (LFP) in control but not in Htr3a-KO during retrieval. A) Schema of the experimental setup for intracerebral recordings in head-fixed mice in the prelimbic cortex (PrL), infralimbic cortex (IL) and basolateral amygdala (BLA). B) Representative examples (1 mouse per condition) of pip-evoked potentials (1-100 Hz), z-normalized to 500ms pre-pip period, in WT and Htr3a-KO mice. Mean of all CS trains (420 pips, solid lines) ± SEM. C) Average pip-evoked LFP ± SEM across the 30 pips of each CS train in WT mice (n = 8; LFP data of 4/12 WT mice were excluded due to poor signal quality) in the PrL, IL, and BLA during habituation and retrieval days. Data are shown across the 14 CS trains (labelled t1 to t14) and were z-normalized to the 500 ms pre-pip baseline. In the PrL, there was a main effect of Days (p = 0.049) and of CS train (p = 0.002). In the IL, there was a main effect of days (p = 0.04), whereas the effect of CS train was not significant (p = 0.77). In the BLA, there was a main effect of days (p = 0.009) and of CS train (p < 0.001). Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post-hoc tests (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001). D) Pip-evoked responses in the Htr3a-KO mice (n = 8), no main effects were detected. E) Averaged LFP response of the first 3 CS during habituation and retrieval days, z-normalized to the 500ms pre-pip-onset in WT (main effect of Days: p =0.004, Bonferroni multiple comparison for PrL, IL and BLA: all p < 0.001) and Htr3a-KO (main effect of Days: p = 0.201). F) LFP responses of the first 3 CS in all mice during habituation (main effect of genotype: p = 0.275) and during retrieval (main effect of genotype: p = 0.038, Bonferroni multiple comparison for PrL: p = 0.489, IL: p = 0.097, BLA: *p = 0.043).

    Journal: bioRxiv

    Article Title: Htr3a receptors control attenuation of fear responses by modulating the corticolimbic activity and synchronization

    doi: 10.64898/2026.03.16.711072

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Fear conditioning increases pip-induced local field potential (LFP) in control but not in Htr3a-KO during retrieval. A) Schema of the experimental setup for intracerebral recordings in head-fixed mice in the prelimbic cortex (PrL), infralimbic cortex (IL) and basolateral amygdala (BLA). B) Representative examples (1 mouse per condition) of pip-evoked potentials (1-100 Hz), z-normalized to 500ms pre-pip period, in WT and Htr3a-KO mice. Mean of all CS trains (420 pips, solid lines) ± SEM. C) Average pip-evoked LFP ± SEM across the 30 pips of each CS train in WT mice (n = 8; LFP data of 4/12 WT mice were excluded due to poor signal quality) in the PrL, IL, and BLA during habituation and retrieval days. Data are shown across the 14 CS trains (labelled t1 to t14) and were z-normalized to the 500 ms pre-pip baseline. In the PrL, there was a main effect of Days (p = 0.049) and of CS train (p = 0.002). In the IL, there was a main effect of days (p = 0.04), whereas the effect of CS train was not significant (p = 0.77). In the BLA, there was a main effect of days (p = 0.009) and of CS train (p < 0.001). Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post-hoc tests (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001). D) Pip-evoked responses in the Htr3a-KO mice (n = 8), no main effects were detected. E) Averaged LFP response of the first 3 CS during habituation and retrieval days, z-normalized to the 500ms pre-pip-onset in WT (main effect of Days: p =0.004, Bonferroni multiple comparison for PrL, IL and BLA: all p < 0.001) and Htr3a-KO (main effect of Days: p = 0.201). F) LFP responses of the first 3 CS in all mice during habituation (main effect of genotype: p = 0.275) and during retrieval (main effect of genotype: p = 0.038, Bonferroni multiple comparison for PrL: p = 0.489, IL: p = 0.097, BLA: *p = 0.043).

    Article Snippet: On D5, mice underwent fear conditioning in a sound-attenuating conditioning chamber (17 × 17 × 25 cm; Ugo Basile, 46003), equipped with a grid floor of stainless-steel bars for shock delivery.

    Techniques: Control, Comparison