Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- analysis:task:lineartracktone [2015/01/12 21:42]
mvdm
+++ analysis:task:lineartracktone [2018/07/07 10:19]
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-==== LinearTrackTone task description, from the Methods section of the paper ====
-=== Overview and timeline ===
-Four male Long-Evans rats (Harlan; Mississauga, Canada), 6-10 months old at the beginning of behavioral
-training, were first habituated to wearing a LED backpack, used for video tracking during behavioral sessions.
-During this first week, rats were food- restricted such that they gradually approached approximately
-%, but never less than 85%, of their free-feeding weight. Next, rats were introduced to the apparatus,
-an elevated linear track 1.8m in length with food pellet reward receptacles at both ends (Figure 1). On this
-track, different audio cues were associated with different reward outcome distributions (described in detail
-in the next section). Reward receptacles were equipped with photobeams, such that delays could be imposed
-between rats nosepoking into the receptacle and the time of reward delivery. As rats learned the task, this
-delay was gradually increased to 500ms.
-Once rats reliably ran >100 trials in a daily 40-minute session (average 11.25 daily sessions from start of
-track training, range 5-21 sessions), they were surgically implanted with an array of tetrodes targeting the
-ventral striatum. Following recovery, rats were re-trained on the task. Once they were running >100 trials
-reliably and recording electrodes reached their targets, neural data acquisition during behavior commenced
-(average 11.5 sessions after surgery, range 6-18 sessions); at this stage video tracking relied on LEDs attached
-to the recording headstage rather than the backpack.
-Recording sessions with (1) at least one recording electrode in the vStr, and (2) in which rats ran at least
-trials, were eligible for initial behavioral analysis (25 sessions total: 3 from R014, 7 from R016, 8
-from R018, and 7 from R020, where R014-020 are subject IDs). As described in the Results, in 16 of
-these 25 sessions there was behavioral evidence for successful discrimination between the reward-predictive
-cues; neural data from these sessions only was analyzed further. All procedures were pre-approved by the
-University of Waterloo Animal Care Committee, and performed in accordance with Canadian Council for
-Animal Care (CCAC) guidelines.
-=== Behavioral task ===
-The behavioral task design had two objectives: first, to elicit behavioral evidence that rats distinguished
-between different reward outcomes, and second, to include a stereotyped period during which neural signals
-could be compared without confounding overt behavioral differences. To accomplish both in a setting in
-which vStr gamma oscillations have been previously found, we constructed an elevated linear track from
-wood, painted matte black, 1.8m in length and 10cm wide. The ends of the linear track were equipped with
-custom- built food pellet reward receptacles, into which rats could nosepoke to break an infrared photobeam
-(Coulbourn; Figure 1A).
-To trigger reward delivery, rats had to hold the nosepoke for 500ms, at which point an automated pellet
-dispenser (Coulbourn) released a number of food pellets (described below; pellets are 45mg Test Diet 5TUL).
-The first pellet arrived in the receptacle between 750 and 1000ms after reward delivery is triggered, resulting
-in a period of at least 1250ms during which rats await reward delivery while stationary at the reward sites.
-A run from one receptacle to the other was defined as a trial, which could be successful (if nosepoke held
-for at least 500ms) or error (no nosepoke made, or withdrawn before 500ms; no reward dispensed). Only
-successful trials were included for analysis.
-{{:analysis:task:lineartracktone_figure1.png?600|}}
-//Figure 1: Behavioral apparatus. A: Rats shuttled back and forth on an 1.8m linear
-track, with food pellet reward receptacles at each end. To obtain reward, rats were required to hold
-a nosepoke for 500ms. The number of pellets received was signaled by audio cues, presented
-when rats traversed a specific location near the center of the track (jittered by a random distance
-of up to 15 cm on a trial by trial basis, to prevent cue onset from being predictable to the rats),
-and played from a speaker placed behind the currently rewarded receptacle.//
-The number of pellets delivered on a given trial was signaled by one of five audio cues, triggered when rats
-entered the center zone of the track (Figure 1A). Random jitter between +15 to -15cm was added to the cue
-presentation trigger zone on each trial, to prevent cue onset from being predictable by the rats. The five audio cues were:
-  *  Cue 1: 2kHz tone, turning on/off at 10Hz
-  *  Cue 2: 15kHz tone
-  *  Cue 3: white noise
-  *  Cue 4: 8kHz tone, amplitude-modulated with a 2Hz sine wave
-  *  Cue 5: 3 different mixed tones (1, 2 and 4kHz) alternating at 15Hz
-Cues were played from a speaker placed behind the currently armed receptacle, such that the average sound
-intensity at the center of the track was measured at 75 dB. Cues remained on until either (1) an unsuccessful
-(early unpoke) nosepoke was made, (2) one second after a successful nosepoke, or (3) the rat re-entering the
-trigger zone in the center of the track. Each cue was associated with a different reward outcome distribution:
-  *  Outcome 1: 1 pellet (100% of trials)
-  *  Outcome 2: 3 pellets (100%)
-  *  Outcome 3: 5 pellets (100%)
-  *  Outcome 4: 2 pellets (50%) or 4 pellets (50%)
-  *  Outcome 5: 1 pellet (50%) or 5 pellets (50%)
-The mapping between audio cues to outcome distributions was counterbalanced between subjects to ensure
-that differences in behavior between cues could not be the result of intrinsic salience or unconditioned responding
-to specific cues. To determine if rats learned the association between cue and outcome distribution,
-we computed their running speed in the ”run” epoch between cue onset and nosepoke; based on classic
-results (e.g. Crespi 1942) we expected rats to run faster in response to the 5-pellet cue than to the 1-pellet
-cue.
-Daily training and recording sessions included two 20-minute blocks: a ”value” block and a ”risk” block.
-During the ”value” block, outcomes with certain reward of 1 (low value), 3 and 5 (high value) pellets were
-pseudorandomly assigned to trials with a frequency of 0.4, 0.2 and 0.4 respectively (i.e. of 100 total trials, 40
-are 1-pellet, 20 are 3-pellet, and 40 are 5-pellet) such that the same cue could not occur more than twice in
-succession. Similarly, the ”risk” block consisted of low risk (2 or 4 pellets, frequency 0.4), no- risk (certain 3
-pellets, frequency 0.2) and high risk (1 or 5 pellets, frequency 0.4). The certain 3-pellet cue was included in
-both blocks to provide a consistent reference point for tracking possible changes in behavior across blocks;
-the comparisons of interest are between low and high value, and between low and high risk. Recording
-sessions additionally included 5 minutes of ”off-task” recording in a separate container (a terra cotta flower
-pot filled with towels) before and after running on the track.
-==== Metadata fields ====
-  * FeederLocation: (x,y) video tracker coordinates with location of reward sites (feeders)
-  * TimeOnTrack1, TimeOffTrack1: times (in seconds, on same timebase as spike and CSC data) on track for value block; TimeOnTrack2 and TimeOffTrack2 same but for risk block
-  * All other fields are times of corresponding event

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools