Extended Data Fig. 6: Controls that clarify behavioural strategy and weighing of evidence in the attentional control task with input uncertainty.
From: Thalamic circuits for independent control of prefrontal signal and noise
a, Behavioural validation of animals using correct task execution strategies (see Fig. 3a). Omitting the distractor on a subset of interleaved trials (15%, valid target only) during choice 2 (Fig. 3a) had no effect on behaviour (n = 41 sessions over 6 mice; p = 0.859 (NS, visual); p = 0.728 (NS, auditory); Mann-Whitney U test). Omitting the target on a similar subset of trials (invalid target only) reduced performance accuracy down to chance level (**p = 0.00649 (visual); **p = 0.00216 (auditory); Mann-Whitney U test). Combined, these data indicate that animals did not adopt a pro-anti strategy based on a single target (vision or audition). b, Average performance on uninformative trials is comparable when the underlying sequences are composed of only broadband white noise pulses (n = 11 sessions over 6 mice; pure 0, p = 0.353 (NS), binomial test) or informative cues with zero overall net evidence (net 0, p = 0.690 (NS), binomial test). c, Regression analysis shows that evidence in the early half and the late half of the cueing sequence contribute equally to animal choice behaviour (n = 54 sessions over 6 mice; early ***p = 2.98 x 10-7, t = 5.12 compared to 0; late ***p = 5.03 x 10-10, t = 6.22 compared to 0; early vs late p = 0.368 (NS), t = 0.901; degree of freedom=3946; student’s t-test). d, Full psychometric functions of individual mice in the conflict-driven input uncertainty task. Performance accuracy in the distributed cue task with input uncertainty due to cueing conflict, separated by animals. For each animal, performance accuracy consistently diminishes with increased cueing conflict (black traces, top and bottom row), while optical PL inactivation (blue traces, top row) during the cueing period strongly suppresses performance regardless of input uncertainty (M1: ***p = 1.60 x 10-10 (relative conflict = 0), ***p = 1.89 x 10-6 (relative conflict = 0.28); M2: ***p = 6.40 x 10-8 (relative conflict = 0), **p = 0.00366 (relative conflict = 0.28); M3: **p = 0.00149 (relative conflict = 0), ***p = 2.38x10-6 (relative conflict = 0.28), ***p = 2.85 x 10-4 (relative conflict = 0.5); M4: ***p = 1.19 x 10-4 (relative conflict = 0), ***p = 4.83 x 10-4 (relative conflict = 0.28), *p = 0.0361 (relative conflict = 0.5); M5: ***p = 4.18 x 10-6 (relative conflict = 0.28), ***p = 8.86 x 10-4 (relative conflict = 0.5), *p = 0.0130 (relative conflict = 0.67); chi-squared test). In contrast, Optical MD inactivation (yellow traces, bottom row) during the cueing period reduces performance more strongly on high conflict trials than on low conflict trials, consistently across animals (M1: **p = 0.00345 (relative conflict = 0.28), ***p = 2.27x10-4 (relative conflict = 0.5); M2: p = 0.111 (NS; relative conflict = 0.28), **p = 0.00676 (relative conflict = 0.5); M3: *p = 0.0208 (relative conflict = 0.28), **p = 0.00556 (relative conflict = 0.5); M4: p = 0.426 (NS; relative conflict = 0.28), **p = 0.00651 (relative conflict = 0.5); M5: *p = 0.0486 (relative conflict = 0.28), **p = 0.0.00107 (relative conflict = 0.5), **p = 0.00227 (relative conflict = 0.67); chi-squared test). Inset in each panel highlights the effect of PL/MD inactivation on trials with low (0.28) and high (0.5) conflict. All statistical tests are two-tailed. For box plots a-c and insets in d, boundaries, 25–75th percentiles; midline, median; whiskers, minimum–maximum. Data are presented as mean ± SEM for d
