U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Display Settings:

Items per page

PMC Full-Text Search Results

Items: 7

1.
Figure 4

Figure 4. From: Cerebellar Inactivation Impairs Cross Modal Savings of Eyeblink Conditioning.

Mean (± SEM) CR percentage during cross modal training with CS2 in 10-trial blocks for rats that received muscimol (black circles) or control (white circles) training during phase 1. The dashed line separates the two sessions of cross modal training.

Matthew M Campolattaro, et al. Behav Neurosci. ;123(2):292-302.
2.
Figure 1

Figure 1. From: Cerebellar Inactivation Impairs Cross Modal Savings of Eyeblink Conditioning.

Cross modal eyeblink conditioning. Mean (± SEM) conditioned response (CR) percentage rats given paired (black circles) or unpaired (white circles) training with CS1 (sessions 1–5) and paired training with CS2 (sessions 6–7). The dashed line separates the sessions for acquisition (CS1) and cross modal training (CS2).

Matthew M Campolattaro, et al. Behav Neurosci. ;123(2):292-302.
3.
Figure 6

Figure 6. From: Cerebellar Inactivation Impairs Cross Modal Savings of Eyeblink Conditioning.

Cerebellar inactivation during phase 2 acquisition. Mean (± SEM) conditioned response CR during acquisition (session 1–5) and cross modal training (session 6–9) for control (black circles) and inactivated (white circles) rats. The dashed line separates the sessions for acquisition (CS1 Drug) and cross modal training sessions (CS2 Drug and CS2 No Drug).

Matthew M Campolattaro, et al. Behav Neurosci. ;123(2):292-302.
4.
Figure 7

Figure 7. From: Cerebellar Inactivation Impairs Cross Modal Savings of Eyeblink Conditioning.

Mean (± SEM) CR percentage during phase 2 training (sessions 8–9) in 10-trial blocks for rats that received muscimol (black circles) or control (white circles) training during cross modal training (session 6–7). The dashed line separates the two sessions of cross modal training.

Matthew M Campolattaro, et al. Behav Neurosci. ;123(2):292-302.
5.
Figure 2

Figure 2. From: Cerebellar Inactivation Impairs Cross Modal Savings of Eyeblink Conditioning.

Mean (± SEM) CR percentage during cross modal training with CS2 in 10-trial blocks for rats that previously received paired (paired-paired; black circles) or unpaired (unpaired-paired; white circles) training with CS1. CR percentages from rats that received paired training during phase 1 (paired CS1; gray circles) are included to show de novo acquisition. The dashed line separates the two sessions of cross modal training.

Matthew M Campolattaro, et al. Behav Neurosci. ;123(2):292-302.
6.
Figure 3

Figure 3. From: Cerebellar Inactivation Impairs Cross Modal Savings of Eyeblink Conditioning.

Cerebellar inactivation during CS1 acquisition. Mean (± SEM) conditioned response (CR) percentage during CS1 acquisition (session 1–5), CS1 retention (session 6) and CS2 cross modal training (session 7–8) for control (black circles) and muscimol inactivated (white circles) rats. The dashed line separates the sessions for acquisition (CS1, Drug), retention testing (CS1 retention, No Drug), and cross modal training (CS2, No Drug).

Matthew M Campolattaro, et al. Behav Neurosci. ;123(2):292-302.
7.
Figure 5

Figure 5. From: Cerebellar Inactivation Impairs Cross Modal Savings of Eyeblink Conditioning.

Cerebellar histology. A. A photograph depicting the location of a cannula tip placement for one rat in the cerebellar interpositus nucleus (IPN). The arrow indicates the location of the cannula tip. B. A photograph that shows a representative example of the spread of fluorescent muscimol (gray areas) to the cerebellar IPN, overlying cortex (HVI), and lateral anterior lobe (ANT).

Matthew M Campolattaro, et al. Behav Neurosci. ;123(2):292-302.

Display Settings:

Items per page

Supplemental Content

Recent activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...
Support Center