Behavioral Mazes

Step Down Avoidance

SKU ME-6007-02-CLEAR
$6,490.00
Unit: Each

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-6007-02-CLEAR
Species SKU ME-6007-02-CLEAR
$6,490.00
Unit: Each

Shipping costs at most $1,000. Order at this price, and we email the exact cost within one business day, before you pay.

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.

Papers that mention step-down avoidance

From 2021 to 2025, 97 animal research papers mentioned step-down avoidance. The count covers the test on any apparatus, not only this one.

Key Specifications

Full details →
Model fit
Mouse, Rat
SKU family
ME-6007 /ME-6008
Sizing
Mouse Step Down Avoidance: 2 Platforms: 7cm, 11cm platform; Rat Step Down Avoidance: 2 Platforms: 7cm, 11cm platform
Ordering
Online checkout and quote request available
Category
Behavioral Mazes
Category: Behavioral Mazes

Score this test with ConductVision

ConductVision is our video-tracking software. Record your sessions on video, and it reports the measures listed below.

What it measures

Add ConductVision and the Advanced Rodent Module to your quote

This test needs the Advanced Rodent Module, an add-on to the ConductVision license.

ConductVision

$1,490 per year

A 5-year license is $3,990 in total.

The Advanced Rodent Module runs on this license. On its own, the license scores standard tests such as the open field, the elevated plus maze, the Y-maze and the Morris water maze. Results export as CSV files.

Ask a question

Have a question? Just ask.

Send it over and we'll email you a personalized answer, with no call or 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, with 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

§ 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. Calibrate and report the intensity and duration, and hold them constant across groups.1
  • Baseline step-down latency. Record training latency and consider excluding animals that fail to step down within a cutoff.4
  • Retention interval. Fix the retention interval and apply it identically to every animal.2
  • Handling stress. 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.

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

3.1 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.

§ 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.

Confound checklist

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

Preview exported markdown

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

Background references

6 selected methods and validation studies of the Step-Down Passive Avoidance, from any lab.

  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