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.

Metrics

  • 501
    views
  • 71
    downloads
  • 0
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

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. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Brian DePasquale, Carlos D Brody, Jonathan W Pillow
    Research Article Updated

    Accumulating evidence to make decisions is a core cognitive function. Previous studies have tended to estimate accumulation using either neural or behavioral data alone. Here, we develop a unified framework for modeling stimulus-driven behavior and multi-neuron activity simultaneously. We applied our method to choices and neural recordings from three rat brain regions—the posterior parietal cortex (PPC), the frontal orienting fields (FOF), and the anterior-dorsal striatum (ADS)—while subjects performed a pulse-based accumulation task. Each region was best described by a distinct accumulation model, which all differed from the model that best described the animal’s choices. FOF activity was consistent with an accumulator where early evidence was favored while the ADS reflected near perfect accumulation. Neural responses within an accumulation framework unveiled a distinct association between each brain region and choice. Choices were better predicted from all regions using a comprehensive, accumulation-based framework and different brain regions were found to differentially reflect choice-related accumulation signals: FOF and ADS both reflected choice but ADS showed more instances of decision vacillation. Previous studies relating neural data to behaviorally inferred accumulation dynamics have implicitly assumed that individual brain regions reflect the whole-animal level accumulator. Our results suggest that different brain regions represent accumulated evidence in dramatically different ways and that accumulation at the whole-animal level may be constructed from a variety of neural-level accumulators.

    1. Neuroscience
    François Osiurak, Giovanni Federico ... Mathieu Lesourd
    Research Article

    Our propensity to materiality, which consists in using, making, creating, and passing on technologies, has enabled us to shape the physical world according to our ends. To explain this proclivity, scientists have calibrated their lens to either low-level skills such as motor cognition or high-level skills such as language or social cognition. Yet, little has been said about the intermediate-level cognitive processes that are directly involved in mastering this materiality, that is, technical cognition. We aim to focus on this intermediate level for providing new insights into the neurocognitive bases of human materiality. Here, we show that a technical-reasoning process might be specifically at work in physical problem-solving situations. We found via two distinct neuroimaging studies that the area PF (parietal F) within the left parietal lobe is central for this reasoning process in both tool-use and non-tool-use physical problem-solving and can work along with social-cognitive skills to resolve day-to-day interactions that combine social and physical constraints. Our results demonstrate the existence of a specific cognitive module in the human brain dedicated to materiality, which might be the supporting pillar allowing the accumulation of technical knowledge over generations. Intensifying research on technical cognition could nurture a comprehensive framework that has been missing in fields interested in how early and modern humans have been interacting with the physical world through technology, and how this interaction has shaped our history and culture.