Trace and delayed conditioning.

<p>(A) Schematic illustration of trace conditioning and delayed conditioning. (B) A graph showing the percentage of freezing over time during trace conditioning. (n =  12). Open circles represent the percentage of freezing during the CS presentation, while filled circles represent the percenta...

وصف كامل

محفوظ في:
التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
المؤلف الرئيسي: Sewon Park (8726826) (author)
مؤلفون آخرون: Kuenbae Sohn (20707365) (author), Donghyeon Yoon (20707368) (author), Junghwa Lee (1989616) (author), Sukwoo Choi (344035) (author)
منشور في: 2025
الموضوعات:
الوسوم: إضافة وسم
لا توجد وسوم, كن أول من يضع وسما على هذه التسجيلة!
الوصف
الملخص:<p>(A) Schematic illustration of trace conditioning and delayed conditioning. (B) A graph showing the percentage of freezing over time during trace conditioning. (n =  12). Open circles represent the percentage of freezing during the CS presentation, while filled circles represent the percentage of freezing during the trace interval. (C) A bar graph comparing the averaged percentage of freezing during the baseline period and the retrieval period, divided into the CS presentation period and the trace interval. During both the baseline and retrieval periods, the CS was presented five times. Statistical comparisons using Multiple Mann–Whitney tests followed by the Holm–Sidak method show significant differences: for CS presentation, * p =  0.025125; for trace intervals, **p  =  0.002557. Error bars represent s.e.m. (D) A graph showing the percentage of freezing over time during delayed conditioning (n =  17). Filled circles represent the percentage of freezing during the CS presentation, while open circles represent the percentage of freezing during the hypothetical trace interval. (E) A bar graph comparing the averaged percentage of freezing during the baseline period and the retrieval period, divided into the CS presentation period and the hypothetical trace interval. During both the baseline and retrieval periods, the CS was presented five times. Statistical comparisons using Multiple Mann–Whitney tests followed by the Holm–Sidak method show significant differences: for CS presentation, ****p <  0.0001; for hypothetical trace intervals, ***p =  0.000768. Error bars represent s.e.m.</p>