Fig. 2: Effects of silencing PPC and FOF.
From: The rat frontal orienting field dynamically encodes value for economic decisions under risk
a, Top-down view of the rat cortex with the target coordinates of FOF and PPC, where the cannulae or optical fibers were implanted. b–g, Probability of choosing the lottery given the difference in the EV of the lottery and the surebet. The circles with error bars are the mean and 95% binomial CIs. Points are jittered to avoid visual overlap of error bars. The ribbons are from a logistic fit to the data. The number of trials indicated on each panel are the infusion trials only. For panels showing data from muscimol experiments, the control data are from 1 d before any infusion. For panels with optogenetic (opto) silencing, the control data are the no-laser trials in the same sessions. Significance (one-sided, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.005, ***P < 0.0005) was based on an LR test between a mixed-effect model with and without a variable indicating which sessions (or trials) were drug/laser versus control. See the statistical appendix for details. b, Bilateral PPC infusions. Control sessions are in gray (n = 24 sessions, 7 rats), and 0.3 μg per side bilateral PPC infusions (n = 12 sessions, 7 rats) are in yellow (LR test, χ2(2, N = 9,501) = 3.15, P = 0.21). c, Bilateral FOF infusions. Control sessions are in gray (n = 17 sessions, 8 rats); 0.075 μg per side bilateral FOF infusions (n = 6 sessions, 5 rats) are in pink; and 0.3 μg per side bilateral FOF infusions (n = 9 sessions, 8 rats) are in purple (LR test, χ2(2, N = 9,389) = 16.43, P = 2.7 × 10−4). d, Bilateral optogenetic silencing of the FOF. Control trials are in gray, and opto silencing trials are in purple (n = 29 sessions, 5 rats, LR test, χ2(2, N = 3,085) = 11.42, P = 3.3 × 10−3). e, Unilateral PPC infusions. Control sessions (n = 100 sessions, 8 rats) are in gray, and 0.3 μg PPC infusions (n = 31 sessions, 8 rats) are in pink (LR test, χ2(2, N = 11,110) = 3.67, P = 0.16). f, Unilateral FOF infusions. Control sessions (n = 39 sessions, 8 rats) are in gray, and 0.3 μg unilateral FOF infusion sessions (n = 36 sessions, 8 rats) are in pink (LR test, χ2(2, N = 10,866) = 13.52, P = 1.2 × 10−3). g, Unilateral optogenetic silencing of the FOF (left FOF n = 75 sessions, 8 rats; right FOF n = 51 sessions, 7 rats; LR test, χ2(2, N = 13,080) = 25.84, P = 2.4 × 10−6). h–j, These panels contain the same data as e–g but are re-organized to show possible ipsi-contra biases. The x axes are the EV of the right option versus the EV of the left option; the y axes are the probability of choosing the right option. If unilateral silencing produced contralateral neglect, then we would expect the psychometric curves from right infusions (in brown) to be above the left infusions (in dark blue) (h: n = 100 control sessions, 12 sessions for left PPC, 19 sessions for right PPC, 8 rats. LR test, χ2(1, N = 2,645) = 1.18, P = 0.28. i: n = 100 control sessions, 16 sessions for left FOF, 20 sessions for right FOF, 8 rats. LR test, χ2(1, N = 2,401) = 6.63, P = 0.01. j: n = 75 sessions for left FOF, 51 sessions for right FOF, 8 rats. LR test, χ2(1, N = 4,658) = 4.59, P = 0.03).
