Extended Data Figure 1: Data from all mice presented in Fig. 1, and single CS conditioned flight and no-shock control groups.
From: A competitive inhibitory circuit for selection of active and passive fear responses
a, The data from Fig. 1d (day 3, conditioning) represented as a line plot to illustrate changes in each mouse. Left, the number of escape jumps (n = 20, Friedman test, P < 0.0001, Dunn’s multiple comparisons test). Middle, flight scores for each mouse. The pre-SCS period is used to calculate the flight score and is therefore plotted as a value of 1 (n = 20, Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test). Right, freezing values (n = 20; one-way repeated-measures ANOVA, F = 56.82, P < 0.0001, Tukey’s multiple comparisons test). b, The data from Fig. 1e (day 4, extinction) represented as a line plot to illustrate changes in each mouse. Left, flight scores for each mouse. The pre-SCS period is used to calculate the flight score and is therefore plotted as a value of 1 (n = 12; Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test). Right, freezing values, including the pre-SCS period, during the first block of four trials of extinction (n = 12; Friedman test, P < 0.01, Dunn’s multiple comparisons test). c, The data from Fig. 1f (day 4, retrieval) represented as a line plot to illustrate changes in each mouse. Left, flight scores for each mouse. The pre-SCS period is used to calculate the flight score and is therefore plotted as a value of 1 (n = 8; two-tailed paired t-test). Right, freezing values, including the pre-SCS period (n = 8; one-way repeated-measures ANOVA, F = 49.55, P < 0.0001, Tukey’s multiple comparisons test). d, Schematic of the paradigm used to elicit flight in response to a single CS. e, Two groups of mice were subjected to the flight paradigm and either a pure tone (n = 10) or white noise (n = 10) was paired with a 1 s shock during conditioning. f, Flight scores for each group, across days. While active behaviour developed in both groups, the flight response was significantly greater in the white noise group on day 3 on the first two trials (two-way repeated-measures ANOVA, cue × trial interaction, F(17,153) = 1.81, P < 0.05, Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test). g, Freezing responses for each group, across days. Freezing in the pure tone or white noise group was similar on all trials (two-way repeated-measures ANOVA, cue × trial interaction, F(17,153) = 1.62, P = 0.06). h, Schematic of behavioural paradigm used to test for possible aversive nature of white noise. i, The SCS was presented but was never paired with footshock. j, Left, flight was not observed in the conditioning context in the absence of pairing with footshock (n = 10, two-tailed paired t-test). Right, freezing values remained at low baseline values in the absence of pairing with footshock (n = 10, Friedman test). k, Left, flight was not observed in the neutral context (n = 10, two-tailed paired t-test). Right, freezing values were decreased, not increased, in response to the SCS (n = 10, one-way ANOVA, F = 9.45, P < 0.01, Tukey’s multiple comparisons test). Horizontal lines denote the mean. Values in f and g are means ± s.e.m. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01.
