Figure 4

Effects of bilateral elPB inactivation on immobility time during the training sessions. A, Timeline of the experimental protocol. ES, electrical shock. B, Summary of the immobility ratio during the pre-CS period, which is the first 30 s after the animal is placed in the conditioning chamber as indicated in A. Both MUS and placement control groups showed significantly higher immobility than the drug control group, but there were no significant differences between them (*p < 0.05, ANOVA and post hoc Tukey’s HSD test). C, Summary of cue-evoked immobility, which is the immobility ratio during the first 18 s period of the 20 s presentation of CS (from the onset of CS until just before the onset of the 2 s US presentation period, A) minus the total pre-CS immobility ratio. There were no inter-group differences in cue-evoked immobility. D, Correlation between pre-CS immobility on day 1 and the freezing ratio on day 2. No correlation was observed (Pearson’s correlation, r = 0.217, p = 0.258; MUS group, r = 0.75, p = 0.836; drug group, r = 0.231, p = 0.522; placement control, r = 0.031, p = 0.937).