Fig. 3: Cued conditioned lick fear responses.

a Schematic drawing of each of the three phases of the cued condition lick suppression task. b Cued conditioned lick suppression performance in WT mice (Cued-Only WT Group; N = 9) compared to KO mice (Cued-Only KO Group; N = 8) during the first tone delivery at Day 7, in a different context (Context B) from that of the conditioning phase (Context A). c Cued conditioned lick suppression performance during the first tone delivery at Day 7 in WT mice that received paired presentations of the tone and footshock during the conditioning phase (Cued-Only WT Group; N = 9) compared to WT mice that received unpaired presentation of the tone and footshock during the conditioning phase (Cued-Only WT Control Group; N = 8). Both groups where conditioned in Context A and tested in Context B. Two-tailed t-test for independent samples with a Bonferroni correction. Data are represented as means and error bars represent ±SEM. Asterisks indicate P-values (***P < 0.001). d–g Percentage probability of survival rate between WT (Cued-Only WT Group; N = 9) and KO mice (Cued-Only KO Group; N = 8) tested from Day 7 to Day 10. Log-rank (Mantel-Cox) tests. Asterisks indicate P-values (*P < 0.05).