Supplementary Figure 6: Task performance, place cell recurrence, and spatial tuning stability by Condition.

Task performance and population stability by genotype follows similar trajectories across conditions; that is to say, performance and stability are similar in Condition I, slightly impaired in the Df(16)A^± mice during Condition II and most different during Condition III (three-way ANOVA, genotype*metric*condition interaction: F(4,549)=0.484, p=0.747; condition*genotype interaction: F(2,549)=11.982, p<0.0001; metric*genotype interaction: F(2,549)=0.771, p=0.463; metric*condition interaction: F(4,549)=1.503, p=0.200; Condition I, all metrics, WT vs. Df(16)A^±: independent samples T-test: t=-1.194, p=0.234; Condition II, all metrics, WT vs. Df(16)A^±: independent samples T-test: t=2.67, p=0.0081; Condition III, all metrics, WT vs. Df(16)A^±: Welch’s T-test: t=5.586, p<0.0001). Same a. Fraction of licks in the reward zone by Condition. Same data in Fig. 3g with values transformed to z-scores (across all conditions and both genotypes). b. Recurrence probability by Condition. Same data in Fig. 3h with values transformed to z-scores (across all conditions and both genotypes). c. Mean centroid shift by Condition. Same data in Fig. 3i with values transformed to -1 * z-scores (across all conditions and both genotypes; multiplying by -1 makes positive values represent relatively increased stability). Bonferroni-corrected post hoc tests comparing genotype per condition; *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.0001.