Behavioral Mazes

Step Down Avoidance

SKU ME-6007 /ME-6008
$6,490.00
IncludesStandard care

Behavioral testing apparatus for assessing inhibitory avoidance learning and memory retention in rodents using step-down paradigm with configurable platforms and aversive conditioning.

Color SKU ME-6007 /ME-6008
Species SKU ME-6007 /ME-6008
$6,490.00
Scientist guidance
Louise Corscadden, PhD, Director of Science

Louise Corscadden, PhD

Director of Science · ConductScience

Ask Louise about Step Down Avoidance fit, setup, configuration, or quote prep.

Key Specifications

Full details →
Model fit
Mouse, Rat
SKU family
ME-6007 /ME-6008
Sizing
43.2 x 38.0 x 27.9 cm
Ordering
Online checkout and quote request available
Category
Behavioral Mazes
Build notes
Confirm accessories, station layout, and support needs before purchase
Category: Behavioral Mazes
Ask a question

Have a question? Just ask.

Send it over and we'll email you a personalized answer — no call, no scheduling.

Personalized email reply
Usually within one business day
Helpful answers published here

Prefer to talk it through?

Ask your question

Type it below and we'll email you a personalized answer — no meeting required.

We'll only use your email to send your answer; broadly useful answers may be published anonymously.

Accessories

Enhance your setup with compatible accessories

Total: $0.00

Use this apparatus with

The complete Step-Down Passive Avoidance workflow

Track behavior

No exact ConductVision step-down-avoidance page is currently published. Retention latency and step-down events are normally captured by the platform timer and floor grid rather than overhead tracking; keep this as a roadmap gap.

Supporting page not yet built

Run protocol

Platform habituation, training step-down with a calibrated foot-shock, retention-interval scheduling, and latency-capped retention-test scoring.

ConductMaze Passive Avoidance Protocol ->

Analyze output

Summarize retention latency, training latency, step-down count, platform time, and locomotor activity with quality-control flags.

Active/Passive Avoidance Calculator ->

Configuration considerations

Common Step-Down Passive Avoidance setup decisions

Use these notes to scope species, cohort, tracking, and automation needs. Only verified product or support routes are linked from this section.

This productSingle platform

Step-Down Avoidance Box

Grid-floor chamber with an elevated insulated platform and a calibrated scrambled foot-shock generator

Standard configuration for inhibitory-avoidance memory, scoring retention latency to step down from the safe platform onto the grid floor after a single training pairing.

Quote

Request Quote
BuyableMouse or rat

Species-Scaled Step-Down Box

Platform height and chamber footprint scaled for mouse or rat body size

Platform height and grid spacing change how readily an animal steps down, so the apparatus geometry should match the species and cohort being tested.

Quote

View options ->
SpecialtyAutomated

Automated Step-Down Box

Platform-mounted load cell and floor-grid sensing with automated latency and step-down logging

Best when automated detection of platform descent is needed to remove observer timing variance and to log step-down events and latency continuously.

Quote

Request automation help

§ 1

Introduction

Step-Down Passive Avoidance measures inhibitory-avoidance memory by recording how long an animal withholds stepping off a safe elevated platform onto a grid floor where it previously received a brief foot-shock. Gold reviewed how single-trial step-down designs became a workhorse for studying memory storage and its modulation. 1

In training, the animal steps down from the platform and receives a brief calibrated foot-shock; at a later retention test the latency to step down again, capped at a ceiling, indexes consolidation of the aversive association. Izquierdo and Medina mapped the biochemical sequence in the hippocampus that this single-trial design helped reveal. 1

Foot-shock intensity, baseline locomotor activity, training step-down latency, retention interval, and handling stress all change retention latency independent of true memory. A defensible protocol calibrates and reports shock intensity, records training latency, fixes the retention interval, and standardizes handling across animals. 1

§ 2

Methods

2.1 Procedure

Single-trial step-down training with a calibrated foot-shock and a latency-capped retention test at a fixed interval.

Pre-test setup

  1. 1.Acclimation and handling: Habituate animals to the room and to consistent handling so training-day behavior reflects the task rather than novelty or handling stress.
  2. 2.Apparatus calibration: Verify platform height, grid spacing, and the scrambled foot-shock generator output, and confirm the timer registers the step-down onto the grid floor.
  3. 3.Record training latency: Measure the baseline latency to step down on the training placement before any shock, since a long pre-shock latency confounds later retention.
  4. 4.Define shock and interval: Fix the foot-shock intensity and duration and the retention interval before data collection, so all groups receive an identical, pre-specified protocol.

Trial sequence

  1. 1.Place on the platform: Place the animal on the elevated platform facing away from the experimenter and start the timer when it orients to the chamber.
  2. 2.Deliver training shock: When the animal steps down onto the grid floor, deliver the calibrated brief foot-shock, then return it to the home cage after the training trial.1
  3. 3.Wait the retention interval: Hold the pre-specified retention interval (for example 24 h) identically for every animal before the retention test.2
  4. 4.Run the retention test: Replace the animal on the platform with no shock and record the latency to step down, capping at the pre-defined ceiling for animals that remain on the platform.
  5. 5.Log step-downs and clean: Record step-down count and platform time, then clean the platform and grid to remove odor cues before the next subject.

Critical methodological constraints

  • Foot-shock intensity. Retention latency scales with shock intensity. Calibrate and report the intensity and duration, and hold them constant across groups.1
  • Baseline step-down latency. A long pre-shock training latency confounds retention. Record training latency and consider excluding animals that fail to step down within a cutoff.4
  • Retention interval. Consolidation depends on the delay between training and test. Fix the retention interval and apply it identically to every animal.2
  • Handling stress. Inconsistent handling adds stress that alters step-down behavior. Standardize handling, placement, and timing across the cohort.3

2.2 Measurement & Analysis

Core step-down passive-avoidance endpoints for memory consolidation and quality control.

Retention Latency

Memory consolidation

Latency to step down from the platform on the retention test, capped at a ceiling, the standard index of inhibitory-avoidance memory.2

Training Latency

Baseline

Latency to step down on the pre-shock training placement, a baseline check that animals behaved comparably before conditioning.4

Step-Down Count

Avoidance failures

Number of times the animal steps off the platform during the retention test, an index of failed avoidance.

Platform Time

Inhibition

Total time spent on the safe platform during the retention test, complementing latency as an inhibition measure.

Locomotor Activity

Confound quality control

General activity on the test; large activity differences can shift step-down latency independent of memory.

+ Additional metrics: latency ceiling reached flag, body weight, retention interval, time of day, shock intensity, and per-trial apparatus notes.

2.3 retention fraction (analysis)

A compact fraction of the latency ceiling that the animal withheld stepping down on the retention test.

Inline calculator

Type the values your tracker recorded.

Full calculator with 95% CI ->
Retention fraction

80.0%

Formula: retention latency capped / (retention latency capped + remaining ceiling time) x 100. Interpret with training latency, foot-shock intensity, retention interval, and locomotor activity because a high fraction can reflect low baseline activity rather than memory. 1

2.4 sample-size planning

Estimate the N per group needed to detect a literature-anchored memory effect at the endpoint you plan to report. Override the defaults with your own pilot numbers.

sample-size planning

Estimate the N per group needed to detect a literature-anchored memory effect at the endpoint you plan to report. Override the defaults with your own pilot numbers.

Intact vs amnestic-manipulation rat at a 24 h retention test; representative magnitudes from Izquierdo & Medina (1997) consolidation work.2

Cohen's d

2.50

N per group at 80% power

3

Total N

6

With attrition cushion

7

At 70% / 90% power

2 / 4

Methods sentence

Need ANOVA, proportions, paired design, or a power curve? Open in the full Sample-Size Calculator →

Formula: n = 2 · ((zα/2 + zβ) / d)2, where d = |μ₁ − μ₂| / σ. Assumes equal allocation, normality, and homoskedasticity. The attrition cushion inflates total N by 1 / (1 − dropout); confirm with your IACUC.

§ 3

Results

PubMed publication counts, sample apparatus output, and recent papers from a dated PubMed snapshot.

3.1 Publication trends

PubMed volume and co-occurring behavioral methods for step-down passive-avoidance studies.

Figure 1 · Step-Down Passive Avoidance publications by year (PubMed)

Papers per year that match this paradigm's PubMed search.

2000201020202026 to date: 18 papers

Total in PubMed: 1,182 papers. PubMed snapshot taken 2026-09-25.

Figure 2 · Methods co-occurring with Step-Down Passive Avoidance (last 12 months)

Share of recent Step-Down Passive Avoidance papers in PubMed that also mention each method.

3.2 Sample apparatus output

Representative output from a single-trial step-down test with a 300 s latency ceiling at a 24 h retention interval.

Table 1 · Per-animal Step-Down Passive Avoidance scoring output

AnimalGroupTraining latencyRetention latencyStep-downsRetention fraction
SD-001Control11 s252 s084.0%
SD-002Control13 s240 s080.0%
SD-003Control12 s228 s176.0%
SD-004Amnestic12 s96 s232.0%
SD-005Amnestic14 s84 s228.0%
SD-006Amnestic11 s108 s236.0%

Synthetic example for illustration only. Pair retention latency with training latency, foot-shock intensity, and locomotor activity before interpreting memory differences.

3.3 Recent findings (PubMed)

  • Degrees-of-Freedom Approximations for Conditional-Mean Inference in Random-Lot Stability Analysis.

    Karl AT, Rushing H, Burdick RK, et al.. Pharm Stat. 2026.

    Linear mixed models are widely used for pharmaceutical stability trending when sufficient lots are available.

  • Early discharge for low-risk pediatric febrile neutropenia: safe only in selected centers.

    Dinç O. Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2026 Sep.

    Marathe et al. report encouraging results from a step-down pathway for low-risk fever and neutropenia in pediatric and adolescent-young adult oncology patients, with reduced hospitalization and no sepsis or infection-related mortality. Their work is an important contribution to risk-adapted supportive care.

  • Septic arthritis due to Corynebacterium striatum in native joints: a systematic review of published cases.

    Posada SR, Zamora PC, López LP, et al.. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2026 Sep.

    Corynebacterium striatum has traditionally been regarded as a skin commensal and is frequently dismissed as a contaminant when isolated from clinical samples. However, it has increasingly been recognized as an opportunistic pathogen in selected clinical settings.

  • Sex-dependent therapeutic effects of nano-curcumin on alzheimer's disease: enhanced cognitive and physiological restoration in female mice.

    Rodrigues KDC, Oliveira MDC, de Souza IC, et al.. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2026 Sep.

    Curcumin (Cur) is a bioactive compound with neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory effects, though its clinical application is limited by poor bioavailability.

  • Gantry-period-guided modulation factor selection in helical tomotherapy: effects on delivery efficiency, dosimetry and verification accuracy.

    Jin X, Gao T, Liu X, et al.. Front Oncol. 2026.

    To explore a gantry-period-guided strategy for identifying a lower useful modulation factor (MF) in helical tomotherapy under fixed field width and pitch. Twenty previously treated cases from head, head-and-neck, abdomen and pelvis were replanned with a field width of 2.5 cm and a pitch of 0.287.

  • A Selective Cortico-Limbic Network Organizes Behavior During Reward Seeking Under Threat.

    Sierra RO, Ramirez-Lugo L, Illescas-Huerta E, et al.. J Neurosci Res. 2026 Aug.

    To obtain rewards, animals must select actions while facing threats, often under competing appetitive and defensive drives and with uncertainty about harm.

View all 1,182 matching papers on PubMed →

§ 4

Discussion

Limitations of the paradigm, methodological caveats, and current directions.

4.1 Common confounds

Variables that can shift Step-Down Passive Avoidance results apart from the effect under study.

Foot-shock intensity

Retention latency scales with shock intensity. Without a calibrated and reported intensity, group differences can reflect the conditioning stimulus rather than memory.

Locomotor activity

A generally hypoactive animal steps down less often, inflating retention latency independent of memory. Report locomotor activity as a check.

Baseline step-down latency

A long pre-shock training latency confounds retention. Record training latency and consider a cutoff for animals that fail to step down.

Retention interval

Consolidation depends on the delay between training and test. A variable retention interval mixes consolidation states across animals.

Handling stress

Inconsistent handling adds stress that alters step-down behavior. Standardize handling, placement, and timing across the cohort.

Confound checklist

Tick the confounds your protocol addresses, then export a methods-paragraph blurb you can paste into your manuscript.

Preview exported markdown
## Step-Down Passive Avoidance — methods controls

Confounds controlled in this protocol:

- **Foot-shock intensity.** Retention latency scales with shock intensity. Without a calibrated and reported intensity, group differences can reflect the conditioning stimulus rather than memory.
- **Locomotor activity.** A generally hypoactive animal steps down less often, inflating retention latency independent of memory. Report locomotor activity as a check.
- **Baseline step-down latency.** A long pre-shock training latency confounds retention. Record training latency and consider a cutoff for animals that fail to step down.
- **Retention interval.** Consolidation depends on the delay between training and test. A variable retention interval mixes consolidation states across animals.
- **Handling stress.** Inconsistent handling adds stress that alters step-down behavior. Standardize handling, placement, and timing across the cohort.

4.2 Construct validity caveats

Step-down passive avoidance is strongest when foot-shock intensity, training-latency recording, retention interval, and handling are fixed before testing. A single retention latency is a screening signal; confirm memory effects with training-latency controls and an independent task such as the shuttle box in the same cohort. 1

4.3 Special considerations

Why record training latency?

A long pre-shock step-down latency means the animal was already hesitant, which confounds the retention measure. Recording training latency lets you confirm baseline behavior was comparable and exclude outliers by a pre-set cutoff.

How should I set the foot-shock intensity?

Calibrate the scrambled foot-shock to a brief, fixed intensity and report it. Retention latency scales with intensity, so it must be held constant across all groups to keep the memory comparison valid.

Does locomotor activity matter for the score?

Yes. A hypoactive animal steps down less often, inflating retention latency independent of memory. Report locomotor activity as a check so a low-activity artifact is not read as strong consolidation.

4.4 Current directions

Quarterly editorial review of emerging Step-Down Passive Avoidance methodology. Q2 2026

Methods

Foot-shock calibration standardization

Calibrating and reporting scrambled foot-shock intensity across rigs improves comparability of retention latency between labs and apparatus models.

Emerging

Automated step-down logging

Platform load cells and floor-grid sensing remove observer timing variance and capture step-down events and latency consistently.

Methods

Training-latency covariate analysis

Recording and modeling pre-shock training latency as a covariate is increasingly expected because baseline hesitation shifts retention latency independent of memory.

Emerging

Multi-task memory batteries

Step-down avoidance is paired with shuttle-box avoidance and contextual fear conditioning to separate inhibitory avoidance from active avoidance and reactive responding in the same cohort.

§ 5

References

6 selected methods and validation references for Step-Down Passive Avoidance.

  1. Gold PE. The use of avoidance training in studies of modulation of memory storage. Behav Neural Biol. 1986;46(1):87-98. doi:10.1016/s0163-1047(86)90927-1
  2. Izquierdo I, Medina JH. Memory formation: the sequence of biochemical events in the hippocampus and its connection to activity in other brain structures. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 1997;68(3):285-316. doi:10.1006/nlme.1997.3799
  3. Roozendaal B. Stress and memory: opposing effects of glucocorticoids on memory consolidation and memory retrieval. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2002;78(3):578-595. doi:10.1006/nlme.2002.4080
  4. Netto CA, Izquierdo I. On how passive is inhibitory avoidance. Behav Neural Biol. 1985;43(3):327-330. doi:10.1016/s0163-1047(85)91697-8
  5. Lorenzini CA, Baldi E, Bucherelli C, Tassoni G. Time-dependent deficits of rat's memory consolidation induced by tetrodotoxin inactivation of the entorhinal cortex. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 1996;65(1):72-78. doi:10.1006/nlme.1996.0008
  6. Ambrogi Lorenzini CG, Baldi E, Bucherelli C, et al. Neural topography and chronology of memory consolidation. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 1999;71(1):1-18. doi:10.1006/nlme.1998.3865
Step Down Avoidance
Step Down Avoidance
$6,490.00
Added to quoteView Quote