Extended Data Fig. 1: Mice suppress reward acquisition both reactively and with threat prediction.
From: Dopamine in the tail of the striatum facilitates avoidance in threat–reward conflicts
(a) Time-course of failure rate of reward acquisition in the training sessions. Mean ± SEM. (b) Avoidance rate in the test sessions. Left, time-course of avoidance rate. Mean ± SEM. Right, the average avoidance rate was higher in the presence of the monster than in the control sessions (p = 3.3 × 10−8, paired t-test, n = 24 animals). (c) The average rates of failure of reward acquisition after entering the monster territory (‘reactive avoidance’, p = 1.0 × 10−6, two-sided paired t-test, n = 24 animals) was higher in the presence of the monster than in the control sessions. (d) Left, time-course of the latency from door opening to entry to the foraging arena (entry latency) and the latency from door opening to entry to the monster territory (trigger latency). Right, regression coefficients of entry and of trigger latency with trial number in Day1 for each mouse. Entry latency and trigger latency gradually increased over trials (entry latency, p = 5.7 × 10−6; trigger latency, p = 7.0 × 10−8, two-sided t-test, n = 24 animals). (e) Regression coefficients of predictive avoidance rate with trial number in monster sessions (Day1-3) for each animal (p = 0.77, two-sided t-test). (f) Left, behavioral responses to motionless static monster were tested with or without experiences of a moving monster. Right, mice avoided a moving monster more than a static monster (p = 1.5 × 10−4, two-sided t-test, n = 6 animals for each). (g) Time course of escape duration in reward acquisition trials. *P < 0.05.
