Abstract

Recognizing and responding to threat cues is essential to survival. Freezing is a predominant threat behavior in rats. We have recently shown that a threat cue can organize diverse behaviors beyond freezing, including locomotion (Chu et al., 2024). However, that experimental design was complex, required many sessions, and had rats receive many foot shock presentations. Moreover, the findings were descriptive. Here, we gave female and male Long Evans rats cue light illumination paired or unpaired with foot shock (8 total) in a conditioned suppression setting, using a range of shock intensities (0.15, 0.25, 0.35, or 0.50 mA). We found that conditioned suppression was only observed at higher foot shock intensities (0.35 mA and 0.50 mA). We constructed comprehensive temporal ethograms by scoring 22,272 frames across 12 behavior categories in 200-ms intervals around cue light illumination. The 0.50 mA and 0.35 mA shock-paired visual cues suppressed reward seeking, rearing, and scaling, as well as light-directed rearing and light-directed scaling. The shock-paired visual cue further elicited locomotion and freezing. Linear discriminant analyses showed that ethogram data could accurately classify rats into paired and unpaired groups. Using complete ethogram data produced superior classification compared to behavior subsets, including an Immobility subset featuring freezing. The results demonstrate diverse threat behaviors – in a short and simple procedure – containing sufficient information to distinguish the visual fear conditioning status of individual rats.

Data availability

Raw frames and scored behaviors have been deposited: doi:10.7910/DVN/Z4YJRJ

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. David C Williams

    Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Amanda Chu

    Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Nicholas T Gordon

    Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Aleah M DuBois

    Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Suhui Qian

    Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Genevieve Valvo

    Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Selena Shen

    Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Jacob B Boyce

    Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Anaise C Fitzpatrick

    Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Mahsa Moaddab

    Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Emma L Russell

    Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Liliuokalani H Counsman

    Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Michael A McDannald

    Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, United States
    For correspondence
    michael.mcdannald@bc.edu
    Competing interests
    Michael A McDannald, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8525-1260

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01-MH117791)

  • Michael A McDannald

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Animal care was in accordance with NIH and Boston College guidelines. The Boston College experimental protocol supporting these procedures is 2024-001.

Copyright

© 2025, Williams et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. David C Williams
  2. Amanda Chu
  3. Nicholas T Gordon
  4. Aleah M DuBois
  5. Suhui Qian
  6. Genevieve Valvo
  7. Selena Shen
  8. Jacob B Boyce
  9. Anaise C Fitzpatrick
  10. Mahsa Moaddab
  11. Emma L Russell
  12. Liliuokalani H Counsman
  13. Michael A McDannald
(2025)
Ethograms predict visual fear conditioning status in rats
eLife 14:e102782.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.102782

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.102782

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Paul I Jaffe, Gustavo X Santiago-Reyes ... Russell A Poldrack
    Research Article

    Evidence accumulation models (EAMs) are the dominant framework for modeling response time (RT) data from speeded decision-making tasks. While providing a good quantitative description of RT data in terms of abstract perceptual representations, EAMs do not explain how the visual system extracts these representations in the first place. To address this limitation, we introduce the visual accumulator model (VAM), in which convolutional neural network models of visual processing and traditional EAMs are jointly fitted to trial-level RTs and raw (pixel-space) visual stimuli from individual subjects in a unified Bayesian framework. Models fitted to large-scale cognitive training data from a stylized flanker task captured individual differences in congruency effects, RTs, and accuracy. We find evidence that the selection of task-relevant information occurs through the orthogonalization of relevant and irrelevant representations, demonstrating how our framework can be used to relate visual representations to behavioral outputs. Together, our work provides a probabilistic framework for both constraining neural network models of vision with behavioral data and studying how the visual system extracts representations that guide decisions.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Silvia Galli, Marco Di Antonio
    Insight

    The buildup of knot-like RNA structures in brain cells may be the key to understanding how uncontrolled protein aggregation drives Alzheimer’s disease.