Review




Structured Review

Open Geospatial Consortium wfs standards
Wfs Standards, supplied by Open Geospatial Consortium, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/wfs standards/product/Open Geospatial Consortium
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
wfs standards - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
90/100 stars

Images



Similar Products

96
Med Associates Inc standard conditioning chamber
vHPC‐PL pathway stimulation effects on contextual fear expression. (a) Top, experimental design of the compound ABCA fear renewal protocol. Optogenetic stimulation of the vHPC‐PL pathway took place during the baseline pre‐CS presentation periods in both renewal test sessions. All sessions took place on different days. Bottom, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 7) and controls ( n = 7). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [n.s.: no significant difference between groups; *: t (12) = 2.51, p = 0.027; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (b) Top, experimental design of the contextual fear <t>conditioning</t> and recall test protocol. Bottom, comparison of percentage of time spent freezing during the baseline and the inter‐trial intervals (ITI) of the contextual fear conditioning session (left) and during the 6 min of the contextual fear recall test (right) for the laser stimulated group ( n = 9) and control animals ( n = 19). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [No significant difference at any time point; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (c) Top, experimental design of the ABA fear renewal protocol. Below, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 10) and controls ( n = 18). Same format as panels (a) and (b). CS 1–4 = average freezing over the first four CS presentations. [*: t (24) = 2.80, p = 0.010; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]
Standard Conditioning Chamber, supplied by Med Associates Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 96/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/standard conditioning chamber/product/Med Associates Inc
Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
standard conditioning chamber - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
96/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

96
Med Associates Inc env 022v standard expanded pvc
vHPC‐PL pathway stimulation effects on contextual fear expression. (a) Top, experimental design of the compound ABCA fear renewal protocol. Optogenetic stimulation of the vHPC‐PL pathway took place during the baseline pre‐CS presentation periods in both renewal test sessions. All sessions took place on different days. Bottom, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 7) and controls ( n = 7). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [n.s.: no significant difference between groups; *: t (12) = 2.51, p = 0.027; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (b) Top, experimental design of the contextual fear <t>conditioning</t> and recall test protocol. Bottom, comparison of percentage of time spent freezing during the baseline and the inter‐trial intervals (ITI) of the contextual fear conditioning session (left) and during the 6 min of the contextual fear recall test (right) for the laser stimulated group ( n = 9) and control animals ( n = 19). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [No significant difference at any time point; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (c) Top, experimental design of the ABA fear renewal protocol. Below, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 10) and controls ( n = 18). Same format as panels (a) and (b). CS 1–4 = average freezing over the first four CS presentations. [*: t (24) = 2.80, p = 0.010; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]
Env 022v Standard Expanded Pvc, supplied by Med Associates Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 96/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/env 022v standard expanded pvc/product/Med Associates Inc
Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
env 022v standard expanded pvc - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
96/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

90
Open Geospatial Consortium wfs standards
vHPC‐PL pathway stimulation effects on contextual fear expression. (a) Top, experimental design of the compound ABCA fear renewal protocol. Optogenetic stimulation of the vHPC‐PL pathway took place during the baseline pre‐CS presentation periods in both renewal test sessions. All sessions took place on different days. Bottom, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 7) and controls ( n = 7). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [n.s.: no significant difference between groups; *: t (12) = 2.51, p = 0.027; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (b) Top, experimental design of the contextual fear <t>conditioning</t> and recall test protocol. Bottom, comparison of percentage of time spent freezing during the baseline and the inter‐trial intervals (ITI) of the contextual fear conditioning session (left) and during the 6 min of the contextual fear recall test (right) for the laser stimulated group ( n = 9) and control animals ( n = 19). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [No significant difference at any time point; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (c) Top, experimental design of the ABA fear renewal protocol. Below, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 10) and controls ( n = 18). Same format as panels (a) and (b). CS 1–4 = average freezing over the first four CS presentations. [*: t (24) = 2.80, p = 0.010; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]
Wfs Standards, supplied by Open Geospatial Consortium, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/wfs standards/product/Open Geospatial Consortium
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
wfs standards - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

90
ANSYS inc standard κ − ε model with non-equilibrium wf
vHPC‐PL pathway stimulation effects on contextual fear expression. (a) Top, experimental design of the compound ABCA fear renewal protocol. Optogenetic stimulation of the vHPC‐PL pathway took place during the baseline pre‐CS presentation periods in both renewal test sessions. All sessions took place on different days. Bottom, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 7) and controls ( n = 7). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [n.s.: no significant difference between groups; *: t (12) = 2.51, p = 0.027; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (b) Top, experimental design of the contextual fear <t>conditioning</t> and recall test protocol. Bottom, comparison of percentage of time spent freezing during the baseline and the inter‐trial intervals (ITI) of the contextual fear conditioning session (left) and during the 6 min of the contextual fear recall test (right) for the laser stimulated group ( n = 9) and control animals ( n = 19). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [No significant difference at any time point; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (c) Top, experimental design of the ABA fear renewal protocol. Below, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 10) and controls ( n = 18). Same format as panels (a) and (b). CS 1–4 = average freezing over the first four CS presentations. [*: t (24) = 2.80, p = 0.010; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]
Standard κ − ε Model With Non Equilibrium Wf, supplied by ANSYS inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/standard κ − ε model with non-equilibrium wf/product/ANSYS inc
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
standard κ − ε model with non-equilibrium wf - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

90
ANSYS inc realizable κ − ε model with standard wf
vHPC‐PL pathway stimulation effects on contextual fear expression. (a) Top, experimental design of the compound ABCA fear renewal protocol. Optogenetic stimulation of the vHPC‐PL pathway took place during the baseline pre‐CS presentation periods in both renewal test sessions. All sessions took place on different days. Bottom, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 7) and controls ( n = 7). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [n.s.: no significant difference between groups; *: t (12) = 2.51, p = 0.027; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (b) Top, experimental design of the contextual fear <t>conditioning</t> and recall test protocol. Bottom, comparison of percentage of time spent freezing during the baseline and the inter‐trial intervals (ITI) of the contextual fear conditioning session (left) and during the 6 min of the contextual fear recall test (right) for the laser stimulated group ( n = 9) and control animals ( n = 19). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [No significant difference at any time point; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (c) Top, experimental design of the ABA fear renewal protocol. Below, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 10) and controls ( n = 18). Same format as panels (a) and (b). CS 1–4 = average freezing over the first four CS presentations. [*: t (24) = 2.80, p = 0.010; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]
Realizable κ − ε Model With Standard Wf, supplied by ANSYS inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/realizable κ − ε model with standard wf/product/ANSYS inc
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
realizable κ − ε model with standard wf - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

96
Med Associates Inc standard operant chamber
vHPC‐PL pathway stimulation effects on contextual fear expression. (a) Top, experimental design of the compound ABCA fear renewal protocol. Optogenetic stimulation of the vHPC‐PL pathway took place during the baseline pre‐CS presentation periods in both renewal test sessions. All sessions took place on different days. Bottom, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 7) and controls ( n = 7). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [n.s.: no significant difference between groups; *: t (12) = 2.51, p = 0.027; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (b) Top, experimental design of the contextual fear <t>conditioning</t> and recall test protocol. Bottom, comparison of percentage of time spent freezing during the baseline and the inter‐trial intervals (ITI) of the contextual fear conditioning session (left) and during the 6 min of the contextual fear recall test (right) for the laser stimulated group ( n = 9) and control animals ( n = 19). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [No significant difference at any time point; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (c) Top, experimental design of the ABA fear renewal protocol. Below, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 10) and controls ( n = 18). Same format as panels (a) and (b). CS 1–4 = average freezing over the first four CS presentations. [*: t (24) = 2.80, p = 0.010; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]
Standard Operant Chamber, supplied by Med Associates Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 96/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/standard operant chamber/product/Med Associates Inc
Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
standard operant chamber - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
96/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

90
Open Geospatial Consortium web feature service (wfs) standards
vHPC‐PL pathway stimulation effects on contextual fear expression. (a) Top, experimental design of the compound ABCA fear renewal protocol. Optogenetic stimulation of the vHPC‐PL pathway took place during the baseline pre‐CS presentation periods in both renewal test sessions. All sessions took place on different days. Bottom, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 7) and controls ( n = 7). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [n.s.: no significant difference between groups; *: t (12) = 2.51, p = 0.027; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (b) Top, experimental design of the contextual fear <t>conditioning</t> and recall test protocol. Bottom, comparison of percentage of time spent freezing during the baseline and the inter‐trial intervals (ITI) of the contextual fear conditioning session (left) and during the 6 min of the contextual fear recall test (right) for the laser stimulated group ( n = 9) and control animals ( n = 19). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [No significant difference at any time point; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (c) Top, experimental design of the ABA fear renewal protocol. Below, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 10) and controls ( n = 18). Same format as panels (a) and (b). CS 1–4 = average freezing over the first four CS presentations. [*: t (24) = 2.80, p = 0.010; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]
Web Feature Service (Wfs) Standards, supplied by Open Geospatial Consortium, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/web feature service (wfs) standards/product/Open Geospatial Consortium
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
web feature service (wfs) standards - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

96
Med Associates Inc standard mouse experimental chambers
vHPC‐PL pathway stimulation effects on contextual fear expression. (a) Top, experimental design of the compound ABCA fear renewal protocol. Optogenetic stimulation of the vHPC‐PL pathway took place during the baseline pre‐CS presentation periods in both renewal test sessions. All sessions took place on different days. Bottom, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 7) and controls ( n = 7). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [n.s.: no significant difference between groups; *: t (12) = 2.51, p = 0.027; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (b) Top, experimental design of the contextual fear <t>conditioning</t> and recall test protocol. Bottom, comparison of percentage of time spent freezing during the baseline and the inter‐trial intervals (ITI) of the contextual fear conditioning session (left) and during the 6 min of the contextual fear recall test (right) for the laser stimulated group ( n = 9) and control animals ( n = 19). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [No significant difference at any time point; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (c) Top, experimental design of the ABA fear renewal protocol. Below, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 10) and controls ( n = 18). Same format as panels (a) and (b). CS 1–4 = average freezing over the first four CS presentations. [*: t (24) = 2.80, p = 0.010; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]
Standard Mouse Experimental Chambers, supplied by Med Associates Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 96/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/standard mouse experimental chambers/product/Med Associates Inc
Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
standard mouse experimental chambers - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
96/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

90
Open Geospatial Consortium web feature service interface standard (wfs)
vHPC‐PL pathway stimulation effects on contextual fear expression. (a) Top, experimental design of the compound ABCA fear renewal protocol. Optogenetic stimulation of the vHPC‐PL pathway took place during the baseline pre‐CS presentation periods in both renewal test sessions. All sessions took place on different days. Bottom, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 7) and controls ( n = 7). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [n.s.: no significant difference between groups; *: t (12) = 2.51, p = 0.027; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (b) Top, experimental design of the contextual fear <t>conditioning</t> and recall test protocol. Bottom, comparison of percentage of time spent freezing during the baseline and the inter‐trial intervals (ITI) of the contextual fear conditioning session (left) and during the 6 min of the contextual fear recall test (right) for the laser stimulated group ( n = 9) and control animals ( n = 19). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [No significant difference at any time point; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (c) Top, experimental design of the ABA fear renewal protocol. Below, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 10) and controls ( n = 18). Same format as panels (a) and (b). CS 1–4 = average freezing over the first four CS presentations. [*: t (24) = 2.80, p = 0.010; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]
Web Feature Service Interface Standard (Wfs), supplied by Open Geospatial Consortium, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/web feature service interface standard (wfs)/product/Open Geospatial Consortium
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
web feature service interface standard (wfs) - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

96
Med Associates Inc standard mdf sound attenuating cubicle
vHPC‐PL pathway stimulation effects on contextual fear expression. (a) Top, experimental design of the compound ABCA fear renewal protocol. Optogenetic stimulation of the vHPC‐PL pathway took place during the baseline pre‐CS presentation periods in both renewal test sessions. All sessions took place on different days. Bottom, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 7) and controls ( n = 7). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [n.s.: no significant difference between groups; *: t (12) = 2.51, p = 0.027; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (b) Top, experimental design of the contextual fear <t>conditioning</t> and recall test protocol. Bottom, comparison of percentage of time spent freezing during the baseline and the inter‐trial intervals (ITI) of the contextual fear conditioning session (left) and during the 6 min of the contextual fear recall test (right) for the laser stimulated group ( n = 9) and control animals ( n = 19). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [No significant difference at any time point; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (c) Top, experimental design of the ABA fear renewal protocol. Below, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 10) and controls ( n = 18). Same format as panels (a) and (b). CS 1–4 = average freezing over the first four CS presentations. [*: t (24) = 2.80, p = 0.010; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]
Standard Mdf Sound Attenuating Cubicle, supplied by Med Associates Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 96/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/standard mdf sound attenuating cubicle/product/Med Associates Inc
Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
standard mdf sound attenuating cubicle - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
96/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

Image Search Results


vHPC‐PL pathway stimulation effects on contextual fear expression. (a) Top, experimental design of the compound ABCA fear renewal protocol. Optogenetic stimulation of the vHPC‐PL pathway took place during the baseline pre‐CS presentation periods in both renewal test sessions. All sessions took place on different days. Bottom, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 7) and controls ( n = 7). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [n.s.: no significant difference between groups; *: t (12) = 2.51, p = 0.027; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (b) Top, experimental design of the contextual fear conditioning and recall test protocol. Bottom, comparison of percentage of time spent freezing during the baseline and the inter‐trial intervals (ITI) of the contextual fear conditioning session (left) and during the 6 min of the contextual fear recall test (right) for the laser stimulated group ( n = 9) and control animals ( n = 19). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [No significant difference at any time point; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (c) Top, experimental design of the ABA fear renewal protocol. Below, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 10) and controls ( n = 18). Same format as panels (a) and (b). CS 1–4 = average freezing over the first four CS presentations. [*: t (24) = 2.80, p = 0.010; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]

Journal: The European Journal of Neuroscience

Article Title: Ventral Hippocampus Modulates Prefrontal Control of Background Contextual Fear After Cued Extinction

doi: 10.1111/ejn.70287

Figure Lengend Snippet: vHPC‐PL pathway stimulation effects on contextual fear expression. (a) Top, experimental design of the compound ABCA fear renewal protocol. Optogenetic stimulation of the vHPC‐PL pathway took place during the baseline pre‐CS presentation periods in both renewal test sessions. All sessions took place on different days. Bottom, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 7) and controls ( n = 7). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [n.s.: no significant difference between groups; *: t (12) = 2.51, p = 0.027; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (b) Top, experimental design of the contextual fear conditioning and recall test protocol. Bottom, comparison of percentage of time spent freezing during the baseline and the inter‐trial intervals (ITI) of the contextual fear conditioning session (left) and during the 6 min of the contextual fear recall test (right) for the laser stimulated group ( n = 9) and control animals ( n = 19). Whiskers depict ±SEM, the shaded blue rectangle indicates when laser was ON. [No significant difference at any time point; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]. (c) Top, experimental design of the ABA fear renewal protocol. Below, comparison of the average time spent freezing during the different learning stages of the protocol for the stimulated animals (ChR2, n = 10) and controls ( n = 18). Same format as panels (a) and (b). CS 1–4 = average freezing over the first four CS presentations. [*: t (24) = 2.80, p = 0.010; unpaired t ‐test, see Section and Data ]

Article Snippet: All training and test sessions were conducted in a standard conditioning chamber kept inside a sound‐attenuating cubicle (VCF‐007, Med Associates, USA).

Techniques: Expressing, Comparison, Control