Back

Sex Based Differences in Active Avoidance and Approach Strategy in the Platform Mediated Avoidance Task

Li, C. J.; Pineda, D.; Reimer, A. E.; Hu, S. M.; Angstman, M. R.; Chang, J. L.; Widge, A. S.

2025-10-02 animal behavior and cognition
10.1101/2025.10.01.679640 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Sex differences have been documented in threat conditioning, but research into potential sex differences in avoidance paradigms, particularly active avoidance, remains limited. This research gap is particularly concerning given that women are disproportionately affected by stress- and anxiety-related disorders, characterized by maladaptive avoidance. Yet, preclinical research has historically focused on male subjects, limiting our understanding of the neurobiological mechanisms underlying sex differences in threat responses. To address this, we investigated sex-specific strategies in adult Long Evans rats (10 female, 9 male) using a modified platform-mediated avoidance (PMA) task that created a high-conflict choice between reward-seeking and safety. Behavior was tracked over 25 days, with analyses focusing on a stable performance phase (days 20-25) objectively defined using change point analysis. The study design included an initial cohort and a replication cohort to ensure the findings robustness. Females consistently prioritized safety, spending significantly more time foregoing reward to avoid foot shock, while males engaged in more persistent reward-seeking despite the risk of shock. This difference was not driven by differential reward motivation. Furthermore, female strategies were not significantly modulated by the estrous cycle. Thus, male and female rats employ fundamentally different strategies to resolve approach-avoidance conflict: females adopt a robust, safety-first strategy, while males demonstrate a risk-prone, reward-oriented approach. These findings highlight the importance of considering biological factors underlying threat responses, suggesting that characterizing these neural mechanisms may guide more targeted interventions for anxiety and trauma-related disorders.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Behavioural Brain Research
70 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.1%
2
Neurobiology of Stress
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.6%
3
Hormones and Behavior
39 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.0%
4
Psychoneuroendocrinology
33 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
5
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
46 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
6
Translational Psychiatry
219 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.1%
50% of probability mass above
7
Psychopharmacology
59 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.7%
8
Biology of Sex Differences
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 34%
3.7%
10
Behavioral Neuroscience
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.9%
11
Physiology & Behavior
30 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.8%
12
Neuropsychopharmacology
134 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
13
Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry
36 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
14
Behavioural Processes
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
15
Biological Psychiatry
119 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
16
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
17
Biological Psychiatry Global Open Science
54 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
18
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.5%
19
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 45%
1.5%
20
Neuropharmacology
60 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
21
The Journal of Neuroscience
928 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.3%
22
Neurobiology of Learning and Memory
35 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
23
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
24
Genes, Brain and Behavior
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
25
Brain and Behavior
37 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%