conditioning chambers with standard sound attenuation Search Results


fear conditioning chamber  (Med Associates Inc)
96
Med Associates Inc fear conditioning chamber
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/product/conditioning+chambers+with+standard+sound+attenuation/Fear+Conditioning+Chamber/custom%40vfc-008%4023527305
Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
fear conditioning chamber - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
96/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
chambers  (Med Associates Inc)
96
Med Associates Inc chambers
Chambers, 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/product/conditioning+chambers+with+standard+sound+attenuation/Sound+Attenuating+Cubicle/pm40003870-345-1-3
Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
chambers - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
96/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
conditioning chamber  (Med Associates Inc)
96
Med Associates Inc conditioning chamber
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/product/conditioning+chambers+with+standard+sound+attenuation/Fear+Conditioning+Chamber/pmc06146057-647-32-34
Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
conditioning chamber - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
96/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
mouse operant conditioning chambers  (AutoMate Scientific Inc)
97
AutoMate Scientific Inc mouse operant conditioning chambers
Mouse Operant Conditioning Chambers, supplied by AutoMate Scientific 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/product/conditioning+chambers+with+standard+sound+attenuation/Modular+Chamber/pmc03682710-280-5-12
Average 97 stars, based on 1 article reviews
mouse operant conditioning chambers - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
97/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
operant conditioning chambers  (Med Associates Inc)
97
Med Associates Inc operant conditioning chambers
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/product/conditioning+chambers+with+standard+sound+attenuation/Lever/us09987286-551-2-5
Average 97 stars, based on 1 article reviews
operant conditioning chambers - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
97/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
conditioning chamber  (UGO Basile S.R.L)
95
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: 95/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/conditioning+chambers+with+standard+sound+attenuation/Fear+Conditioning/bio_rxiv__64898__2026__03__16__711072-46-9-17
Average 95 stars, based on 1 article reviews
conditioning chamber - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
95/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
sound attenuation chamber  (Muromachi Kikai)
86
Muromachi Kikai sound attenuation 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).
Sound Attenuation Chamber, supplied by Muromachi Kikai, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 86/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/conditioning+chambers+with+standard+sound+attenuation/attenuation+chamber+sound/10__1523_slash_jneurosci__1071___24__2025-98-11-14
Average 86 stars, based on 1 article reviews
sound attenuation chamber - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
86/100 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