Extended Data Fig. 7: MEC is not required for all interval timing behavior. | Nature Neuroscience

Extended Data Fig. 7: MEC is not required for all interval timing behavior.

From: Medial entorhinal cortex mediates learning of context-dependent interval timing behavior

Extended Data Fig. 7

a. Schematic for inhibiting MEC after learning in the tDNMS task. After experiments testing the role of MEC during learning (Fig. 4), a subset of mice (n = 7 DREADD, n = 10 Control) underwent extended training to determine whether MEC is necessary for ongoing task performance. b. Though MEC inhibition impaired learning in the tDNMS task (Sessions 1-8), DREADD mice learned the task in the absence of MEC inhibition (Sessions 9-14). Following learning, subsequent administration of DCZ to inactivate MEC did not affect performance in Sessions 15-16. Bars indicate mean performance ± s.e.m calculated across mice. c. Fixed interval task schematic. MEC DREADD (n = 9) and Control (n = 10) mice were trained on a fixed interval (FI) task (Toda et al. 2017). A droplet of water (4-6ul) was delivered every 10 s to head-fixed mice. Licking was measured; time-locked predictive licking indicates learning the timing of water delivery. The DREADD agonist DCZ (1 mg/kg) was delivered 5 min prior to each session. d. Licking behavior of DREADD (n = 9) and Control (n = 10) mice on sessions 1 and 5 of the FI task. Licking was normalized to the maximum lick frequency with each session for each mouse. All trials for all mice are shown; water delivery occurs at 0 s, indicated by a yellow line. Average lick response for each session is shown in white. e. Fixed interval learning. Predictive licking is defined as an increase in lick rate, measured over 5 seconds preceding the upcoming reward delivery. Both DREADD and Control mice learn the temporal structure of the task, as demonstrated though more frequent engagement in predictive licking from sessions 1-5. Data represent mean ± s.e.m. averaged across mice. f. Average time of peak predictive licking activity in FI task relative to upcoming water delivery. From session 1 to 5, peak predictive licking activity moves closer to reward delivery (0 s) for both Control (p = 2.2 × 10−4, two-tailed paired t-test) and DREADD mice (p = 0.0013 two-tailed paired t-test). Data points represent average time of peaking licking on Session 1 and 5 for each mouse; bars indicate mean ± s.e.m. across mice.

Back to article page