Figure 2

lPB-CeC and BLA-CeC EPSCs in the five experimental groups. A1, Averaged traces of eight consecutive lPB-CeC EPSCs with increasing stimulus intensities. A2, Relationships between stimulus intensity and lPB-CeC EPSC amplitude, expressed as mean ± SEM. lPB-CeC synapse in FC mice (filled circle, solid line; n = 13–26) and FC alone mice (filled circle, dashed line; n = 18) revealed significantly enhanced synaptic transmission compared with naive mice (open circle, solid line; n = 18–27). In comparison, CS alone mice (open circle, dashed line; n = 16–18) and unpaired mice (grey circle, dashed line; n = 18–20) showed indistinguishable lPB-CeC EPSC amplitudes. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, analyzed with post hoc Dunnett’s t-test following ANOVA. A3, CeC EPSC amplitudes evoked by lPB stimuli of 400 μA intensity. B1 , Averaged traces of eight consecutive BLA-CeC EPSCs with increasing stimulus intensities. B2, Relationships between stimulus intensity and BLA-CeC EPSC amplitude, expressed as mean ± SEM. BLA-CeC synapse in FC mice (filled diamond, solid line; n = 10–17) and FC alone mice (filled diamond, dashed line; n = 17) revealed significantly enhanced synaptic transmission compared with naive mice (open diamond, solid line; n = 18–27). On the other hand, CS alone mice (open diamond, dashed line; n = 11–14) and unpaired mice (grey diamond, dashed line; n = 15–16) showed indistinguishable BLA-CeC EPSC amplitudes. *p < 0.05, analyzed with post hoc Dunnett’s t-test following ANOVA. B3, CeC EPSC amplitudes evoked by BLA stimuli of 400 μA intensity (bottom right).