standard conditioning chamber Search Results


standard sound-attenuated operant conditioning chambers  (Coulbourn Instruments)
90
Coulbourn Instruments standard sound-attenuated operant conditioning chambers
Standard Sound Attenuated Operant Conditioning Chambers, supplied by Coulbourn Instruments, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/standard sound-attenuated operant conditioning chambers/product/Coulbourn Instruments
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
standard sound-attenuated operant conditioning chambers - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
operant chambers 30 × 25 × 3  (Coulbourn Instruments)
90
Coulbourn Instruments operant chambers 30 × 25 × 3
Operant Chambers 30 × 25 × 3, supplied by Coulbourn Instruments, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/operant chambers 30 × 25 × 3/product/Coulbourn Instruments
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
operant chambers 30 × 25 × 3 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
standard conditioning chamber  (Harvard Bioscience)
90
Harvard Bioscience standard conditioning chamber
Standard Conditioning Chamber, supplied by Harvard Bioscience, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/standard conditioning chamber/product/Harvard Bioscience
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
standard conditioning chamber - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
standard conditioning chambers  (Coulbourn Instruments)
90
Coulbourn Instruments standard conditioning chambers
Illustration of the experimental paradigm. (A) Subjects received fear <t>conditioning</t> on Day 1, which consisted of three CS-US pairings. On Day 2, subjects received either a retrieval CS or no retrieval CS, followed 1 h later by extinction (19 total CSs) with either fixed ITIs or variable ITIs. Average ITIs were 1 min in Experiment 1 and 2 min in Experiment 2 min. (B) In Experiment 2 min, the ITI variability was divided into three different categories: no variability (fixed), small variability and large variability. On Day 3, subjects received two unpaired USs (reinstatement). On Day 4, subjects received three unpaired CSs as a probe for reinstatement of fear. CS, conditional stimulus; US, unconditional stimulus; ITI, inter trial interval; ret, retrieval; min, minute.
Standard Conditioning Chambers, supplied by Coulbourn Instruments, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/standard conditioning chambers/product/Coulbourn Instruments
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
standard conditioning chambers - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
standard conditioning chamber  (Coulbourn Instruments)
90
Coulbourn Instruments standard conditioning chamber
Upper section: Experimental design for the modulatory task used in Experiment 2. The Pavlovian threat <t>conditioning</t> (PTC) session took place on the first day of training. Subjects underwent the suppression (cSup) and then facilitation (cFac) components. USAP refers to unsignaled approach training and unsignaled sidman active avoidance (USAA) to USAA training phases where the two-way shuttle response was acquired in reward vs. avoidance procedures. After recovery from CeA lesions, additional tests were conducted. Lower section: Data collected for Experiment 2. Suppression test data are presented in (A) in terms of responses per minute during the Pre CS and CS periods and (B) in terms of the suppression ratio ( CSresponding/CSresponding + PreCSresponding ). USAA training data are presented in (C) for each three-session block in terms of mean avoidance responses per block. Data from the pre-surgical tests for conditioned facilitation and conditioned suppression are presented on the left of (D) and the post surgical tests on the right side. These data are presented in terms of percent of Pre CS responding for each test. * p < 0.05.
Standard Conditioning Chamber, supplied by Coulbourn Instruments, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/standard conditioning chamber/product/Coulbourn Instruments
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
standard conditioning chamber - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
standard conditioning chambers equipped with metal walls and stainless-steel rod floors  (Coulbourn Instruments)
90
Coulbourn Instruments standard conditioning chambers equipped with metal walls and stainless-steel rod floors
Upper section: Experimental design for the modulatory task used in Experiment 2. The Pavlovian threat <t>conditioning</t> (PTC) session took place on the first day of training. Subjects underwent the suppression (cSup) and then facilitation (cFac) components. USAP refers to unsignaled approach training and unsignaled sidman active avoidance (USAA) to USAA training phases where the two-way shuttle response was acquired in reward vs. avoidance procedures. After recovery from CeA lesions, additional tests were conducted. Lower section: Data collected for Experiment 2. Suppression test data are presented in (A) in terms of responses per minute during the Pre CS and CS periods and (B) in terms of the suppression ratio ( CSresponding/CSresponding + PreCSresponding ). USAA training data are presented in (C) for each three-session block in terms of mean avoidance responses per block. Data from the pre-surgical tests for conditioned facilitation and conditioned suppression are presented on the left of (D) and the post surgical tests on the right side. These data are presented in terms of percent of Pre CS responding for each test. * p < 0.05.
Standard Conditioning Chambers Equipped With Metal Walls And Stainless Steel Rod Floors, supplied by Coulbourn Instruments, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/standard conditioning chambers equipped with metal walls and stainless-steel rod floors/product/Coulbourn Instruments
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
standard conditioning chambers equipped with metal walls and stainless-steel rod floors - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
conditioning chambers with standard sound attenuation  (Coulbourn Instruments)
90
Coulbourn Instruments conditioning chambers with standard sound attenuation
Upper section: Experimental design for the modulatory task used in Experiment 2. The Pavlovian threat <t>conditioning</t> (PTC) session took place on the first day of training. Subjects underwent the suppression (cSup) and then facilitation (cFac) components. USAP refers to unsignaled approach training and unsignaled sidman active avoidance (USAA) to USAA training phases where the two-way shuttle response was acquired in reward vs. avoidance procedures. After recovery from CeA lesions, additional tests were conducted. Lower section: Data collected for Experiment 2. Suppression test data are presented in (A) in terms of responses per minute during the Pre CS and CS periods and (B) in terms of the suppression ratio ( CSresponding/CSresponding + PreCSresponding ). USAA training data are presented in (C) for each three-session block in terms of mean avoidance responses per block. Data from the pre-surgical tests for conditioned facilitation and conditioned suppression are presented on the left of (D) and the post surgical tests on the right side. These data are presented in terms of percent of Pre CS responding for each test. * p < 0.05.
Conditioning Chambers With Standard Sound Attenuation, supplied by Coulbourn Instruments, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/conditioning chambers with standard sound attenuation/product/Coulbourn Instruments
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
conditioning chambers with standard sound attenuation - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
drug-discrimination apparatus ten standard operant-conditioning chambers enclosed in light- and sound-attenuating enclosures  (Coulbourn Instruments)
90
Coulbourn Instruments drug-discrimination apparatus ten standard operant-conditioning chambers enclosed in light- and sound-attenuating enclosures
Upper section: Experimental design for the modulatory task used in Experiment 2. The Pavlovian threat <t>conditioning</t> (PTC) session took place on the first day of training. Subjects underwent the suppression (cSup) and then facilitation (cFac) components. USAP refers to unsignaled approach training and unsignaled sidman active avoidance (USAA) to USAA training phases where the two-way shuttle response was acquired in reward vs. avoidance procedures. After recovery from CeA lesions, additional tests were conducted. Lower section: Data collected for Experiment 2. Suppression test data are presented in (A) in terms of responses per minute during the Pre CS and CS periods and (B) in terms of the suppression ratio ( CSresponding/CSresponding + PreCSresponding ). USAA training data are presented in (C) for each three-session block in terms of mean avoidance responses per block. Data from the pre-surgical tests for conditioned facilitation and conditioned suppression are presented on the left of (D) and the post surgical tests on the right side. These data are presented in terms of percent of Pre CS responding for each test. * p < 0.05.
Drug Discrimination Apparatus Ten Standard Operant Conditioning Chambers Enclosed In Light And Sound Attenuating Enclosures, supplied by Coulbourn Instruments, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/drug-discrimination apparatus ten standard operant-conditioning chambers enclosed in light- and sound-attenuating enclosures/product/Coulbourn Instruments
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
drug-discrimination apparatus ten standard operant-conditioning chambers enclosed in light- and sound-attenuating enclosures - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

Image Search Results


Illustration of the experimental paradigm. (A) Subjects received fear conditioning on Day 1, which consisted of three CS-US pairings. On Day 2, subjects received either a retrieval CS or no retrieval CS, followed 1 h later by extinction (19 total CSs) with either fixed ITIs or variable ITIs. Average ITIs were 1 min in Experiment 1 and 2 min in Experiment 2 min. (B) In Experiment 2 min, the ITI variability was divided into three different categories: no variability (fixed), small variability and large variability. On Day 3, subjects received two unpaired USs (reinstatement). On Day 4, subjects received three unpaired CSs as a probe for reinstatement of fear. CS, conditional stimulus; US, unconditional stimulus; ITI, inter trial interval; ret, retrieval; min, minute.

Journal: Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience

Article Title: Reconsolidation-Extinction Interactions in Fear Memory Attenuation: The Role of Inter-Trial Interval Variability

doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00002

Figure Lengend Snippet: Illustration of the experimental paradigm. (A) Subjects received fear conditioning on Day 1, which consisted of three CS-US pairings. On Day 2, subjects received either a retrieval CS or no retrieval CS, followed 1 h later by extinction (19 total CSs) with either fixed ITIs or variable ITIs. Average ITIs were 1 min in Experiment 1 and 2 min in Experiment 2 min. (B) In Experiment 2 min, the ITI variability was divided into three different categories: no variability (fixed), small variability and large variability. On Day 3, subjects received two unpaired USs (reinstatement). On Day 4, subjects received three unpaired CSs as a probe for reinstatement of fear. CS, conditional stimulus; US, unconditional stimulus; ITI, inter trial interval; ret, retrieval; min, minute.

Article Snippet: All behavioral procedures were conducted in standard conditioning chambers (Coulbourn Instruments) equipped with stainless-steel rod floors connected to shock generators.

Techniques:

Upper section: Experimental design for the modulatory task used in Experiment 2. The Pavlovian threat conditioning (PTC) session took place on the first day of training. Subjects underwent the suppression (cSup) and then facilitation (cFac) components. USAP refers to unsignaled approach training and unsignaled sidman active avoidance (USAA) to USAA training phases where the two-way shuttle response was acquired in reward vs. avoidance procedures. After recovery from CeA lesions, additional tests were conducted. Lower section: Data collected for Experiment 2. Suppression test data are presented in (A) in terms of responses per minute during the Pre CS and CS periods and (B) in terms of the suppression ratio ( CSresponding/CSresponding + PreCSresponding ). USAA training data are presented in (C) for each three-session block in terms of mean avoidance responses per block. Data from the pre-surgical tests for conditioned facilitation and conditioned suppression are presented on the left of (D) and the post surgical tests on the right side. These data are presented in terms of percent of Pre CS responding for each test. * p < 0.05.

Journal: Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience

Article Title: Modulation of instrumental responding by a conditioned threat stimulus requires lateral and central amygdala

doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00293

Figure Lengend Snippet: Upper section: Experimental design for the modulatory task used in Experiment 2. The Pavlovian threat conditioning (PTC) session took place on the first day of training. Subjects underwent the suppression (cSup) and then facilitation (cFac) components. USAP refers to unsignaled approach training and unsignaled sidman active avoidance (USAA) to USAA training phases where the two-way shuttle response was acquired in reward vs. avoidance procedures. After recovery from CeA lesions, additional tests were conducted. Lower section: Data collected for Experiment 2. Suppression test data are presented in (A) in terms of responses per minute during the Pre CS and CS periods and (B) in terms of the suppression ratio ( CSresponding/CSresponding + PreCSresponding ). USAA training data are presented in (C) for each three-session block in terms of mean avoidance responses per block. Data from the pre-surgical tests for conditioned facilitation and conditioned suppression are presented on the left of (D) and the post surgical tests on the right side. These data are presented in terms of percent of Pre CS responding for each test. * p < 0.05.

Article Snippet: For Experiment 1, Context a was a standard conditioning chamber manufactured by Coulbourn (Whitehall PA: Model No. H10-11R-TC).

Techniques: Blocking Assay