ライフサイエンスコーパス: foot shock

1 hat a particular odor indicated an impending foot shock.

2 oduction of intermittent, seeking-contingent foot shock.

3 ask in which an auditory cue was paired with foot shock.

4 different stimulus, the CS-, not followed by foot shock.

5 ore a different tone (CS-) not predictive of foot shock.

6 with unpaired presentations of the tones and foot-shock.

7 lever presses were punished by mild electric foot shocks.

8 subgroup of rats despite delivery of noxious foot shocks.

9 Rats exposed to 30 min of intermittent foot shock (0.6 mA) each day for 14 days, did not exhibi

10 Importantly, foot-shock alone did not increase spinogenesis.

11 ditioning variants motivated aversively with foot shock and appetitively with food.

12 contexts: one of which was paired with weak foot shock and the other was not.

13 ontrol mice were exposed to tail suspension, foot-shock and social stressors in order to test the hyp

14 nile and adult rats were presented with mild foot-shocks and their USV frequency, duration, and relat

15 en an unconditioned stimulus (US), such as a foot shock, and a conditioned stimulus (CS), such as a l

16 g consisting of an auditory CS paired with a foot shock, and the auditory CS was re-presented during

17 ic conditional stimulus, the CS+, to avoid a foot shock, and they learn to ignore a different stimulu

18 tone [conditioned stimulus (CS)+] to avoid a foot shock, and they learn to ignore a different tone (C

19 ipopolysaccharide or subjected to electrical foot-shock as rat models of stress.

20 ction groups, presumably reflecting the tone-foot shock association independently of CER expression,

21 Pregnant dams were exposed to mild stress (foot shocks at 1 week intervals) throughout pregnancy.

22 cessed in three empirical models of anxiety: foot shock avoidance responding in a shuttle box, the el

23 training in which they learned to prevent a foot-shock by stepping in an activity wheel after one to

24 mice were also found to be more sensitive to foot-shock compared to wildtype.

25 In the extinction group, Pavlovian tone-foot shock conditioning, followed by repeated tone-alone

26 angiotensin IV (Ang IV) immediately prior to foot-shock conditioning improved retention of the condit

27 remained sedentary following uncontrollable foot shock demonstrated robust conditioned freezing beha

28 The foot-shock-driven excitation within the LHb requires glu

29 tioning, pairing a neutral cue with aversive foot shock endows a cue with fear-eliciting properties.

30 in which whisker stimulation is paired with foot shock, enhances sparse population coding and robust

31 We observe that aversive stimuli, including foot-shocks, excite LHb neurons and promote escape behav

32 that differences in sleep architecture after foot-shock exposure may not be simply due to increased a

33 tional arousal (restraint stress/inescapable foot shock, exposure to the predator odor TMT, or periph

34 of a light or an odor paired previously with foot shock (fear-potentiated startle).

35 el of PTSD, we show that a brief but intense foot shock followed by three brief reminders can cause l

36 huttle box for 4 d or were given inescapable foot-shocks for the same time period.

37 Stress was induced by a strong foot shock (FS; 5 x 1 mA, 2 s) applied 5 min after WM tr

38 In foot-shock groups, learned helplessness was more robust

39 h foot shock, relative to a context in which foot shock had never been presented.

40 als consisting of the delivery of unsignaled foot shock in a novel observation chamber; freezing serv

41 Thirty minutes of intermittent foot shock increased both dopamine release (+41%) and sy

42 In contrast, exposure to mild electric foot shocks induced a pattern of ACTH secretion that was

43 in KOR conditional knock-out mice prevented foot-shock-induced CPP reinstatement.

44 on of conditioned fear to a tone paired with foot shock is thought to involve the formation of new me

45 the effect is seen only when high-intensity foot-shock is used in training.

46 t flies to avoid an odor that is followed by foot shock many seconds later.

47 r this discrepancy between cold exposure and foot shock might be related to differences in the nature

48 ug treatment was not mimicked by exposure to foot shocks, nor was it prevented by administering a pot

49 d in the Morris water maze without requiring foot shock or food deprivation as motivating factors.

50 ociation with METH but not associations with foot shock or food reward were disrupted by a highly-spe

51 unpredictably either in punishment (0.45 mA foot-shock) or the opportunity to make a taking response

52 noise)--unconditioned stimulus (2 s; 0.57 mA foot shock) pairings and tested 24 h later for contextua

53 is often recorded after exposure to various foot-shock paradigms designed to induce an anxiety state

54 rats either before or immediately after tone-foot shock Pavlovian fear conditioning.

55 tly different firing rates 90-700 ms after a foot shock-predictive conditional stimulus (CS+) than to

56 day for 14 days) or continuous exposure to a foot shock protocol (0.6 mA trains at random intervals 2

57 exposure to cold or continuous exposure to a foot shock protocol on tail shock-evoked norepinephrine

58 s, but not 2 weeks, following uncontrollable foot shock reduced the expression of conditioned freezin

59 startle in a context paired previously with foot shock, relative to a context in which foot shock ha

60 In Experiment 2, foot shock responses (flinch, jump, sonic vocalizations)

61 nd that repeated pairings of an odour with a foot-shock resulted in enhanced post-synaptic potential

62 tion to avoid shock, open field activity, or foot shock sensitivity between lesion and control groups

63 ostnatal days 1-21) on fear conditioning and foot shock sensitivity in adult male and female rats.

64 le rats and tends to enhance this effect and foot shock sensitivity in females.

65 There were no effects on foot shock sensitivity.

66 than to nonassociative auditory stimulation, foot shock sensitization, or unpaired tone-shock present

67 a behaviourally relevant stimulus, such as a foot-shock, so that eventually the former stimulus alone

68 atement procedure in mice, we show that both foot-shock stress and the pharmacological stressor yohim

69 Pregnant female rats received a daily foot-shock stress or sham-stress two days after testing

70 reinstatement of cocaine seeking induced by foot-shock stress, but in the absence of continued globa

71 in following exposure to tail suspension and foot-shock stressors relative to ddY controls.

72 or following exposure to tail suspension or foot-shock stressors.

73 lesions drastically impaired the ability of foot shock to suppress operant responding for food.

74 C57) and DBA/2J (DBA) mice were given tone + foot shock training trials.

75 stimulus (tone [CS]) and a noxious stimulus (foot shock [US]).

76 which is dependent upon the intensity of the foot-shock used for training; that is, the effect is see

77 freezing in the original context, in which a foot shock was never delivered.

78 ntext after conditioning and responsivity to foot shock were unaffected by optogenetic silencing.

79 dure in which one visual cue (CS+) predicted foot shock while a second cue (CS-) did not.

80 timulus that had previously been paired with foot shock while measuring nociception with the radiant

81 gan by conditioning an animal to associate a foot shock with optogenetic stimulation of auditory inpu