ライフサイエンスコーパス: foot shock

1 h aversive and unexpected events (surprising foot shock).

2 ard with increasing risk of punishment (mild foot shock).

3 gh-temperature stress, noise disturbance and foot shock.

4 d to pairings of a novel target stimulus and foot shock.

5 hat a particular odor indicated an impending foot shock.

6 oduction of intermittent, seeking-contingent foot shock.

7 cally activated by aversive stimuli, such as foot shock.

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

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

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

11 when the stimulus is paired with an electric foot-shock.

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

13 lever presses were punished by mild electric foot shocks.

14 subgroup of rats despite delivery of noxious foot shocks.

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

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

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

18 Foot shock and optogenetic LC stimulation produced immed

19 ioral responding to aversive stimuli such as foot shock and provide a foundation for future work aime

20 on in this neural circuit during exposure to foot shock and shock-predictive cues, optogenetic stimul

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

22 discrimination between a context paired with foot shocks and a different context never paired with fo

23 ncluding a population that responded to mild foot shocks and predicted aversive events.

24 nspecifics, one of which is stressed via two foot shocks and the other naive to treatment.

25 ined mice to associate these odors with mild foot shocks and then extinguished their fear toward thes

26 PreP-S) and postpubertal (PD41-50; PostP-S) foot-shock and restraint combined stress, on ventral teg

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

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

29 um following an unpredicted noxious event (a foot-shock) and that this norepinephrine release is pote

30 use despite adverse consequences (contingent foot shocks), and irritability-like behavior during with

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

32 In a typical procedure, a cue is paired with foot shock, and subsequent cue presentation elicits free

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

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

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

36 ce/escape-maintained responding and increase foot shock as an adverse consequence.

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

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

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

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

41 However, when tested 24 h after foot shock, both Dbh(-/-) and Gal(cKO-Dbh) mice lacked n

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

43 tive (male-to-female exposure) and negative (foot shock) cells upregulated genes linked to anti- and

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

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

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

47 rat model in which cocaine seeking despite a foot-shock contingency only emerges in some vulnerable i

48 scrimination between auditory cues signaling foot-shock could be avoided by making or withholding ins

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

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

51 nd that BLA astrocytes robustly responded to foot shock during acquisition, their activity remained r

52 interneurons responsive to aversive electric foot shocks during contextual fear conditioning (shock-r

53 e light illumination paired or unpaired with foot shock (eight total) in a conditioned suppression se

54 as expressed in the mouse brain, we observed foot shock-elicited and running-triggered eCB signaling

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

56 rs in the timing or intensity of a predicted foot-shock engage NMDARs in the BLA for Pavlovian fear c

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

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

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

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

61 ined mice to associate these odors with mild foot shocks (F0-Trained), and 3) trained mice to associa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

69 r cellular activity-after a single stressful foot shock in four dimensions: that is, from functional

70 ; importantly, this "strategy" changed after foot shock in half of the brain areas.

71 netic activation of a single glomerulus with foot shock in mice induces freezing to light stimulation

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

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

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

75 oned suppression was only observed at higher foot shock intensities (0.35 mA and 0.50 mA).

76 and rearing - all of which are maximal when foot shock is imminent.

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

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

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

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

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

82 toring galanin, but not NE, signaling during foot shock normalized stress-induced anxiety-like behavi

83 The presentation of two foot shocks of weaker intensity during retrieval resulte

84 We used foot shock, optogenetics, and behavioral pharmacology in

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

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

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

88 iving probabilistic fear discrimination with foot shock outcome.

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

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

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

92 like behavior in WT mice, and the effects of foot shock persisted for 24 h.

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

94 red many sessions, and had rats receive many foot shock presentations.

95 Three 10 s auditory cues predicted unique foot shock probabilities: danger (p=1.00), uncertainty (

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

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

98 The result was RRF signals for foot shock receipt, positive prediction error, anti-posi

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

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

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

102 l studies revealed that exposure to repeated foot shock resulted in significant physiological and str

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

104 ar one stimulus, S1, when it was paired with foot-shock (S1->shock), and 48 h later, a second stimulu

105 sequence with the already-conditioned S1 and foot-shock (S2->S1->shock).

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

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

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

109 There were no effects on foot shock sensitivity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

117 pulate neuron-type activity, pair a cue with foot shock, then measure cue-elicited freezing in a nove

118 most CA1 neurons did not respond to tone and foot shock throughout the training and recall cycles.

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

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

121 ' the association between a naive tone and a foot shock (training) and release ACh in the BLA in resp

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

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

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

125 ks and a different context never paired with foot shock was retained normally for 15 d.

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

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

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

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

130 owed increased numbers of c-fos+ cells after foot shock, yet hypothalamic areas stood out as being mo