(a) B6 mice differentially approached socially conditioned cues relative to novel cues (*orthogonal contrast for social approach vs

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Social reward among juvenile mice"</p><p></p><p>Genes, Brain, and Behavior 2007;6(7):661-671.</p><p>Published online Jan 2007</p><p>PMCID:PMC2040181.</p><p>© 2006 The Authors Journal compilation</p> novelty approach, = 0.03, social approach = time in social environment time in novel environment). (b) Unconditioned B6 mice did not respond differentially to the presentation of novel cues in the testing arena (novelty approach = time in novel environment time in familiar environment). (c) B6 mice approached novel environments only when the other peripheral compartment of the testing arena contained cues that predicted social isolation (orthogonal contrast for isolation aversion vs. novelty approach, < 0.001, isolation aversion = time in novel environment time in isolate environment). Data in each panel are presented as the mean ± SEM

(a–c) Frequency distributions illustrate the number of mice (ordinate) expressing a particular preference score (abscissa) following (a) no conditioning, (b) social conditioning or (c) food conditioning

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Social reward among juvenile mice"</p><p></p><p>Genes, Brain, and Behavior 2007;6(7):661-671.</p><p>Published online Jan 2007</p><p>PMCID:PMC2040181.</p><p>© 2006 The Authors Journal compilation</p> Mice from all of the strains were included in the distributions. (a′–c′) Juvenile mice did not differentially approach or explore the environments (a′) without conditioning. (b′) Social conditioning resulted in a CPP for mice from three strains but not BALB mice (Tukey’s HSD tests, * < 0.05 for all tests comparing BALB with the other strains). (c′) Mice from all of the strains learned the conditioning contingency when food was used as a reward. Preference scores were calculated as the duration spent in the reward-paired (social or food) environment the duration spent in the reward-impoverished (isolation or food deprivation) environment. (a″–c″) There were strain-dependent differences in locomotor activity (a″) without conditioning, (b″) with social conditioning and (c″) with food conditioning. There was no difference in exploratory activity between BALB and B6 mice that were tested following the food conditioning procedure (Tukey’s HSD tests, * < 0.05 compared with all other strains, < 0.05 compared with the A strain, < 0.05 compared with the A and DBA strains). Data in panels a′–c′ and a″–c″ are presented as the mean ± SEM