4.6 Article

Sleep after differing amounts of conditioned fear training in BALB/cJ mice

Journal

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
Volume 147, Issue 1-2, Pages 193-202

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0166-4328(03)00180-3

Keywords

anxiety models; conditioned fear; mouse; rapid eye movement sleep; shock training; sleep

Funding

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [MH61716] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Shock training and auditory cues associated with shock produce alterations in sleep that can be long-lasting in BALB/cJ (C) mice. We examined sleep in C mice after different amounts of shock training, and after cues with different strength cue-shock associations. Mice were implanted with transmitters for determining sleep via telemetry. After baseline sleep recording, the mice were trained (between 08:00 and 09:00 h) to associate a cue (tone) with footshock in either single shock training (SST: a single tone-shock pairing) or multiple shock training (MST: 15 tone-shock pairings) conditions. For testing, the mice were presented 15 cues (tone only) in their home cage between 10:45 and 11:00 h on post-training days 6, 13, 20, 27, and 34 (Cue I to Cue 5) following shock training. Sleep was recorded for two days after shock training or cue presentation. A separate group of mice received 15 tone-shock pairings and had their sleep recorded for 10 consecutive uninterrupted days. Both SST and MST mice showed decreases in rapid eye movement sleep (REM) after shock training, with the larger effect in the MST mice. Only MST mice showed significant reductions in REM in response to the fearful cues, and longer-term alterations in sleep could be observed even on the day after cue presentation. These results indicate that reminders of an aversive event can impact sleep for prolonged periods, and that the degree of the impact varies with amount of training. (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available