Fig. 3: Characterization of behavior during social conditioning.
a (top) Experimental mice interacted with naïve female, shocked female, or male conspecifics. (bottom) Ethogram depicting behaviors exhibited by the experimental mouse when paired with a shocked (left) and male (right) conspecific. The naïve female condition is depicted in Fig. 1. b Ethogram depicting all behaviors exhibited by the experimental mouse while in social proximity of the shocked (left) or male (right) conspecific. Social proximity was defined as a distance of 1″ between animals. c Behaviors exhibited by the experimental mouse during each SIFC stimulus variant during the social conditioning phase. The experimental mouse in the shock or male condition spent more time in social proximity and more time eating than those in the female condition [nfemale = 18, nshock = 15, nmale = 8; two-way mixed-model ANOVA] d Behaviors exhibited by the experimental mouse during each SIFC variant while in social proximity during the conditioning phase. In social proximity, significant differences were observed in sniffing and grooming behaviors [equivalent n’s to c; two-way mixed-model ANOVA]. e Anogenital sniffing does not predict response preference in SIFC [simple linear regression] f Grooming behaviors also do not predict response preference in SIFC [simple linear regression]. Bars represent means + SEMs, and symbols represent individual mice, lines represent simple linear regressions, shaded areas represent 90% confidence intervals. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.001. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.
