Claims 34
From the paper Threat and Bidirectional Valence Signaling in the Nucleus Accumbens Core · claims file · checked 2026-11-06: ready
- units-recorded
368 NAcc single units were recorded from seven rats over 95 fear discrimination sessions.
A total of 368 NAcc single units were recorded from seven rats over 95 fear discrimination sessions
Results, opening section before NAcc neurons show heterogeneous cue firing, paragraph 3 (beginning "A total of 368 NAcc single units")How it will be judged
Counts of units, distinct sessions (rat and date) and rats in the data set. These are counts of what was deposited, so the tolerance is zero.
- cue-responsive-193
The cue-responsive screen identified 193 units (about 53% of all units) from 82 sessions, with at least seven cue-responsive units in each rat.
This screen identified 193 cue-responsive single units (;53% of all units recorded) from 82 sessions, with at least seven cue-responsive single units identified in each rat
Results, opening section, paragraph 3 (beginning "A total of 368 NAcc single units")How it will be judged
The screen of the Methods (Identifying cue-responsive neurons), as in the opening comment. The t-test pairs, for each trial, the 10-s baseline mean with the cue-window mean (paired, as the Methods say). Which trials form the uncertainty cue is open; (a) all eight uncertainty trials, as the cue analyses collapse them; (b) shock and omission trials tested as separate cues. "At least seven" per rat is a bound, so the smallest per-rat count must be 7 or more. Reproduced when, under one reading, the two counts are within tolerance and every rat has at least 7 cue-responsive units.
- fig1c-acquisition
Over the eight pre-surgery sessions rats acquired discrimination, with high suppression to danger, intermediate to uncertainty and low to safety; ANOVA found a main effect of cue and a cue by session interaction.
Rats acquired discrimination over the first eight sessions, showing high suppression in response to danger, intermediate suppression in response to uncertainty, and low suppression in response to safety (Fig. 1C)
Results, paragraph 1; Figure 1CHow it will be judged
Per rat and pre-surgery session, the mean suppression ratio of each cue over its trials (uncertainty trials pooled); repeated-measures ANOVA with cue (3) and session (1 to 8) as within-rat factors, as the Methods (Calculating suppression ratios) say. Reproduced when the cue main effect and the cue by session interaction both have p < 0.05 and the mean over rats is ordered danger > uncertainty > safety. Where the order is read is open; (a) session 8; (b) the mean over the eight sessions. Needs the eight pre-surgery sessions, which the data set's description (95 recording sessions) may not hold.
- fig1g-discrimination
During the recording sessions all rats discriminated the cues, with suppression ratios highest to danger, intermediate to uncertainty and lowest to safety; every cue pair differed.
Suppression ratios were high in response to danger, intermediate in response to uncertainty, and low in response to safety. ANOVA for mean individual suppression ratio revealed a main effect of cue
Results, paragraph 4 (beginning "Rats showed complete discrimination"); Figure 1GHow it will be judged
Per rat, the mean suppression ratio of each cue over the trials of the chosen sessions; repeated-measures ANOVA on cue (n = 7 rats); studentized bootstrap 95% CIs (1000 resamples) of the per-rat differences, as in the Methods. Tolerances are the distance from each mean to the nearer bound of the paper's CI. Which sessions is open; (a) the 82 sessions with a cue-responsive unit, as the Results say; (b) all 95 recording sessions; (c) the 79 sessions of the three main populations. Reproduced when, under one reading, the cue effect has p < 0.05, every CI excludes zero and the three means are within tolerance; partially reproduced when the ANOVA and all three CIs hold but a mean is out of tolerance.
- fig1h-discrimination-safety
Overall discrimination was largely the product of low safety suppression; it correlated negatively with the safety suppression ratio across rats.
Discrimination was largely the product of reduced safety suppression ratios. In support, there was a significant negative relationship between overall discrimination and safety suppression ratio
Results, paragraph 5; Figure 1HHow it will be judged
As fig1h-poke-rate-unrelated, the Pearson correlation across the seven rats of danger minus safety suppression ratio with safety suppression ratio. Reproduced when R is negative with p < 0.05 and within tolerance.
- fig2-five-clusters
K-means clustering of the 193 cue-responsive units on six firing epochs (onset and late cue firing to each cue) gave five functional populations; Threat Excited (5), Threat Inhibited (26), Danger Excited (55), Bidirectional Valence (91) and Non-Selective (16).
We applied k-means clustering to the matrix and found that five clusters grouped similar functional types
Results, NAcc neurons show heterogeneous cue firing, paragraphs 1 and 2; Figure 2 legendHow it will be judged
The 193 x 6 matrix of the Methods (K-means clustering), MATLAB kmeans with its defaults (squared Euclidean distance, k-means++ starts), k = 5 as the paper reports choosing it. The matrix entries are open; (a) mean normalized firing, as the Results say; (b) mean firing in Hz, which the Methods' "firing rate" allows. The start is random and the paper gives no seed or number of replicates; (i) the solution with the lowest summed distance over 100 starts; (ii) the most frequent partition over 100 starts. Clusters are named from their centroids by the Results' descriptions (Results, NAcc neurons show heterogeneous cue firing, paragraph 2). Threat Excited and Threat Inhibited change equally to danger and uncertainty, less to safety (up and down); Danger Excited increase most to danger; Bidirectional Valence decrease most to danger; Non-Selective increase without differing between cues. Reproduced when, under one reading, all five counts are within tolerance; partially reproduced when the five named patterns appear but a count is out of tolerance. The cluster number rule (fewest clusters with smallest mean distance, k from 1 to 7) is shown as a variant, with the mean distance at each k.
- populations-by-rat
Threat Excited units came from two of seven rats (four from one rat), Threat Inhibited from four rats, Danger Excited from six and Bidirectional Valence from all seven; the three main populations (172 units) came from 79 sessions.
Threat Excited neurons (n = 5) were observed in only two of seven subjects, with four single units coming from one subject
Results, NAcc neurons show heterogeneous cue firing, paragraph 2How it will be judged
Counts of distinct rats and sessions among the units of each population, under the population readings of the opening comment. Rat counts are small integers, so they must match exactly. Reproduced when all counts match.
- most-units-threat
Most cue-responsive NAcc units showed their greatest firing change to the shock-associated cues, danger and uncertainty.
most NAcc neurons showed the greatest firing changes in response to the shockassociated cues: danger and uncertainty
Discussion, paragraph 1; Results, NAcc neurons show heterogeneous cue firing, paragraph 2How it will be judged
The paper rests this on its cluster counts; the four populations with differential cue firing (Threat Excited, Threat Inhibited, Danger Excited, Bidirectional Valence) are 177 of 193 units, and Non-Selective units do not differ between cues. Reproduced when these four populations hold more than half of the cue-responsive units.
- fig3ab-rate-cv-unimodal
Across the 172 units of the three main populations, baseline firing rate and coefficient of variance had unimodal distributions.
we observed unimodal distributions for baseline firing rate
Results, NAcc neurons show heterogeneous cue firing, paragraph 3; Figure 3A and 3BHow it will be judged
A claim of absence, judged on the paper's test. Baseline rate is the mean firing in the 10 s before cue onset (Methods, Firing and waveform characteristics); which trials are averaged is not said, and all 16 trials are used. The coefficient of variance is the SD over the mean of the interspike intervals; the spikes it uses are not said, and the paper's text allows (a) the 10-s baseline periods, as the Results say these measures were taken while rats poked for food, and (b) the whole session. Hartigan's dip test with a p-value by bootstrap from the uniform distribution (the paper does not name its implementation). Reproduced when neither distribution has p < 0.05; not reproduced when either does.
- fig3c-waveform-bimodal
Waveform peak-valley duration was bimodal across the 172 units; Threat Inhibited units were mostly wide (bimodal only at an uncorrected p), Danger Excited units unimodal and mostly narrow, and Bidirectional Valence units bimodal with about half narrow and half wide.
we observed a bimodal distribution for waveform peak- valley duration across all 172 neurons
Results, NAcc neurons show heterogeneous cue firing, paragraphs 3 and 4; Figure 3CHow it will be judged
Peak-valley duration is the time from the valley of the mean waveform to the following peak (Methods, Firing and waveform characteristics); dip test as in fig3ab-rate-cv-unimodal. The narrow/wide boundary is the dashed line of Figure 3C, whose value the text does not give and which could not be read here. Readings; (a) the value of the dashed line, read from Figure 3C; (b) the lowest point of the 172-unit histogram between its two modes. The split is shown under each. Reproduced when the 172-unit and Bidirectional Valence distributions have p < 0.05, Danger Excited has p >= 0.05 with most units narrow, Threat Inhibited has most units wide, and Bidirectional Valence has between 45% and 55% narrow (10% of the paper's 50%); partially reproduced when the dip tests hold but a split does not. The dip values are reported against their tolerances.
- fig4ab-thi-threat-firing
Threat Inhibited units decreased firing more to danger and uncertainty than to safety, both at cue onset and during late cue.
Threat Inhibited neurons showed greater firing decreases in response to threat cues (danger and uncertainty) compared with safety at onset
Results, NAcc populations show distinct danger and uncertainty firing patterns, paragraph 1; Figure 4A and 4BHow it will be judged
Normalized firing and the cue by interval ANOVA as in the opening comment. Per unit, the mean of danger and uncertainty minus safety in each window; studentized bootstrap 95% CI over units. "Danger and uncertainty" is open; (a) the mean of the danger and uncertainty window values; (b) danger and uncertainty trials pooled before averaging. Tolerances are the distance to the nearer CI bound. Reproduced when the cue effect and the interaction have p < 0.05, both CIs exclude zero and both means are within tolerance; partially reproduced when the CIs exclude zero with a mean out of tolerance.
- fig4b-thi-danger-equals-uncertainty
Threat Inhibited firing decreases to danger and uncertainty did not differ, at onset or during late cue.
Firing decreases in response to danger and uncertainty did not differ at onset
Results, NAcc populations show distinct danger and uncertainty firing patterns, paragraph 1; Figure 4BHow it will be judged
A claim of absence, judged on the paper's test, the studentized bootstrap 95% CI of per-unit danger minus uncertainty normalized firing, at onset and late cue. Reproduced when both CIs contain zero; not reproduced when either excludes it. The means are reported (paper, -0.01 and -0.02).
- fig4cd-de-danger-firing
Danger Excited units fired most to danger and discriminated all three cues at onset, and during late cue their firing was selective for danger over uncertainty and safety.
Firing was maximal in response to danger and fully discriminated the three cues at onset
Results, NAcc populations show distinct danger and uncertainty firing patterns, paragraph 2; Figure 4C and 4DHow it will be judged
As fig4ab-thi-threat-firing. Reproduced when the cue effect and interaction have p < 0.05, the three CIs exclude zero and the three means are within tolerance; partially reproduced when the CIs exclude zero with a mean out of tolerance.
- fig4ef-bv-danger-decrease
Bidirectional Valence units, the most abundant population (about 47% of cue-responsive units), decreased firing to danger more than to uncertainty and safety, at onset and during late cue.
Bidirectional Valence neurons showed danger firing decreases that exceeded uncertainty and safety decreases at onset
Results, NAcc populations show distinct danger and uncertainty firing patterns, paragraph 3; Figure 4E and 4FHow it will be judged
As fig4ab-thi-threat-firing. Reproduced when the cue effect and interaction have p < 0.05, both CIs exclude zero and the means and share are within tolerance; partially reproduced when the CIs exclude zero with a value out of tolerance.
- fig4f-bv-safety-variability
Bidirectional Valence units varied more in their safety onset firing than in their danger or uncertainty onset firing.
There was greater variability in onset safety firing compared with either danger (Pitman-Morgan test, p=0.0087) or uncertainty onset firing
Results, NAcc populations show distinct danger and uncertainty firing patterns, paragraph 4; Figure 4FHow it will be judged
Per unit, normalized onset firing (first 1 s) to each cue; Pitman-Morgan test of equal variances of paired values (safety against danger, safety against uncertainty), as the Methods name it. Reproduced when both tests have p < 0.05 with the safety variance larger.
- fig5ab-the-onset
Threat Excited units increased firing more to danger and uncertainty than to safety at onset, but not during late cue.
Threat Excited neurons (Fig. 5A) showed greater firing increases to threat cues (danger and uncertainty) compared with safety at onset
Results, Threat Excited and Non-Selective population, paragraph 1; Figure 5A and 5BHow it will be judged
As fig4ab-thi-threat-firing, for the five Threat Excited units. Reproduced when the interaction has p < 0.05, the onset CI excludes zero with the mean within tolerance, and the late cue CI contains zero (the paper's test for the absence at late cue).
- fig5cd-ns-nonselective
Non-Selective units showed no main effect of cue and no cue by interval interaction, and their threat and safety firing did not differ at onset or late cue.
ANOVA for Non-Selective neurons (Fig. 5C) found neither a main effect of cue
Results, Threat Excited and Non-Selective population, paragraph 1; Figure 5C and 5DHow it will be judged
A claim of absence, judged on the paper's tests; the ANOVA of fig4ab-thi-threat-firing at p < 0.05 and the two bootstrap CIs. Reproduced when neither ANOVA term has p < 0.05 and both CIs contain zero; not reproduced when any finds the effect. Sizes are reported.
- fig6-similarity-anova
Temporal firing similarity between cue pairs depended on population and comparison, with a population by comparison interaction.
revealed significant main effects of population
Results, Threat Inhibited neurons show greatest temporal firing similarity, paragraph 2; Figure 6How it will be judged
Per unit, mean normalized firing to each cue in 12 bins of 1 s (2 s before cue onset to cue offset); Pearson R between the 12-bin traces of each cue pair (danger/uncertainty, uncertainty/safety, danger/safety), as in the Methods (Firing similarity analyses). Mixed ANOVA on R, population between units and comparison within. Whether the 1-s bins are averages of the 250-ms normalized bins or recomputed is open; (a) the mean of four 250-ms normalized bins; (b) 1-s bins normalized in the same way. Reproduced when all three terms have p < 0.05; partially reproduced when the interaction holds and a main effect does not.
- fig6d-thi-similarity
In Threat Inhibited units, danger/uncertainty firing similarity exceeded uncertainty/safety and danger/safety similarity.
Paired t tests (Bonferroni corrected for nine tests; 0.05/9= 0.0056) revealed Threat Inhibited R values for danger/uncertainty to exceed those for uncertainty/ safety
Results, Threat Inhibited neurons show greatest temporal firing similarity, paragraph 2; Figure 6DHow it will be judged
R values of fig6-similarity-anova; paired t tests at the Bonferroni level 0.05/9. Reproduced when both are significant with danger/uncertainty higher.
- fig6e-de-similarity
In Danger Excited units, danger/uncertainty firing similarity exceeded uncertainty/safety and danger/safety similarity.
Danger Excited R values for danger/uncertainty exceed those for uncertainty/safety
Results, Threat Inhibited neurons show greatest temporal firing similarity, paragraph 2; Figure 6EHow it will be judged
As fig6d-thi-similarity, for Danger Excited units.
- fig6f-bv-no-similarity-difference
In Bidirectional Valence units, firing similarity did not differ between any cue pairs.
no differences were observed for any cue pair in Bidirectional Valence neurons
Results, Threat Inhibited neurons show greatest temporal firing similarity, paragraph 2; Figure 6FHow it will be judged
A claim of absence, judged on the paper's test; the three paired t tests between comparisons at the Bonferroni level 0.05/9. Reproduced when none is significant; not reproduced when any is. The t values are reported (paper, all t < 2.1).
- fig6-thi-greatest-similarity
Danger/uncertainty firing similarity in Threat Inhibited units exceeded that of Danger Excited and Bidirectional Valence units, and was the greatest of all populations and cue pairs.
danger/uncertainty firing similarity by Threat Inhibited neurons exceeded that for Danger Excited (Fig. 6E) and Bidirectional Valence neurons (Fig. 6F)
Results, Threat Inhibited neurons show greatest temporal firing similarity, paragraphs 1 and 2; Figure 6D to 6F legendHow it will be judged
Danger/uncertainty R values of Threat Inhibited units against those of Danger Excited and of Bidirectional Valence units, unpaired t tests. The level is open; (a) p < 0.05, as the Figure 6 legend marks; (b) p < 0.0056, the Bonferroni level the Methods give for within- and between-cluster comparisons. Reproduced when, under one reading, both tests are significant with Threat Inhibited higher and the Threat Inhibited danger/uncertainty mean R is the highest of the nine population and pair means.
- fig7-tuning-curves
The extreme of the Threat Inhibited tuning curve was at an uncertainty assignment of 0.75, and those of Danger Excited and Bidirectional Valence units at 0.50, so each population signaled an exaggerated threat above the uncertainty cue's 0.25 shock probability.
The extreme of the Threat Inhibited tuning curve occurred at an uncertainty assignment of 0.75, while the extremes of the tuning curves for Danger Excited and Bidirectional Valence neurons occurred at an uncertainty assignment of 0.50
Results, NAcc neurons do not signal fear output, paragraph 1; Figure 7How it will be judged
Per unit, the 16 trials of its session, a cue regressor of 1 for danger, 0 for safety and u for the eight uncertainty trials, u in 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1; linear regression with a constant (Methods, Tuning curve). The firing regressed is open; (a) one regression on each trial's mean normalized firing over the 10-s cue, as the Methods say; (b) a regression for each 1-s cue bin, with the ten betas averaged, as the Results say ("averaging beta coefficients across the 10 s cue"). Per-trial normalization as in the opening comment. The population curve is the mean beta at each u; the extreme is the assignment with the most extreme mean beta (Methods, Tuning curve), the trough for the inhibited populations (Threat Inhibited, Bidirectional Valence) and the peak for Danger Excited. The assignment is a choice among five levels, so it must match exactly. Reproduced when, under one reading, all three match; partially reproduced when two do.
- fig8ab-thi-exaggerated-threat
Threat Inhibited firing signaled exaggerated threat and not fear output; exaggerated threat betas were below zero at early and late cue, and differed from fear output betas at early but not late cue.
Beta coefficients for exaggerated threat, but not for the fear output, were shifted below zero during early cue
Results, NAcc neurons do not signal fear output, paragraph 3; Figure 8A and 8BHow it will be judged
Per unit and 1-s bin (2 s before cue onset to cue offset, 12 bins), per-trial normalized firing over the 16 trials of its session regressed on the trial's suppression ratio (fear output) and the population's cue pattern (1 danger, 0 safety, uncertainty at the population's tuning curve extreme of fig7-tuning-curves, 0.75 by the paper), with a constant (Methods, Single-unit linear regression). Whether the two regressors share one model is open; (a) one model with both, as the Methods give one output per regressor; (b) a separate model for each. Early cue is the first 5 s and late cue the last 5 s (Figure 8 legend); per unit the mean beta over those bins; studentized bootstrap CIs over units. Repeated-measures ANOVA on beta, regressor by bin. The degrees of freedom imply one unit fewer than 26; units with a regression that cannot be fit (no variation in suppression ratio) are left out, as a reading. Reproduced when the interaction has p < 0.05, the two exaggerated threat CIs and the early difference CI exclude zero with means within tolerance, the fear output CIs contain zero and the late difference CI contains zero; partially reproduced when the exaggerated threat CIs exclude zero and the fear output CIs contain zero but another part fails.
- fig8cd-de-exaggerated-threat
Danger Excited firing signaled exaggerated threat and not fear output; exaggerated threat betas exceeded zero at early and late cue, and exceeded fear output betas at early but not late cue.
Beta coefficients exceeding zero were observed for exaggerated threat during early cue
Results, NAcc neurons do not signal fear output, paragraphs 3 and 4; Figure 8C and 8DHow it will be judged
As fig8ab-thi-exaggerated-threat, with the uncertainty value at 0.50, and the main effect of regressor in place of the interaction.
- fig8ef-bv-exaggerated-threat
Bidirectional Valence firing signaled exaggerated threat and not fear output; early exaggerated threat betas were below zero while fear output betas were not, and the two differed at early but not late cue.
Early beta coefficients were shifted below zero for exaggerated threat
Results, NAcc neurons do not signal fear output, paragraph 4; Figure 8E and 8FHow it will be judged
As fig8ab-thi-exaggerated-threat, with the uncertainty value at 0.50. Reproduced when the regressor effect and the interaction have p < 0.05, the early exaggerated threat and early difference CIs exclude zero with means within tolerance, and the early fear output and late difference CIs contain zero.
- fig9a-reward-firing
Around pellet feeder advance in the ITI, Bidirectional Valence units selectively increased firing after reward, while Threat Inhibited and Danger Excited units did not change firing.
The interaction was the result of Bidirectional Valence neurons selectively increasing firing following pellet feeder advance
Results, Reward-related firing confirms NAcc threat and Bidirectional Valence populations, paragraph 2; Figure 9AHow it will be judged
Pellet feeder advances during the ITI, with no cue or shock; per unit, firing in 16 bins of 250 ms from 2 s before to 2 s after each advance, averaged over events, minus the mean of the 1 s before advance (Methods, z-score normalization). Open details. Which rewards count as ITI; (a) advances whose 4-s window falls outside the 20 s before cue onset to 20 s after cue offset; (b) advances whose window does not overlap a cue or a shock. The normalization of the reward trace; (i) divided by the unit's SD from the cue normalization; (ii) z-scored over the 16 reward bins. The degrees of freedom imply that some units (7 of 172, 4 of the Bidirectional Valence units) were left out; units with no qualifying reward are left out, as a reading. Mixed ANOVA, population between and bin within; then a repeated-measures ANOVA per population. Reproduced when, under one reading, the interaction and the Bidirectional Valence interval effect have p < 0.05 and neither Threat Inhibited nor Danger Excited has an interval effect at p < 0.05.
- fig9bcd-reward-pre-post
Bidirectional Valence firing around zero before reward rose after reward, with post exceeding pre; Threat Inhibited and Danger Excited pre and post reward firing differed neither from zero nor from each other.
In Threat Inhibited and Danger Excited neurons, pre-reward and post-reward firing differed neither from zero nor from each other (all 95% CIs contained zero
Results, Reward-related firing confirms NAcc threat and Bidirectional Valence populations, paragraph 2; Figure 9B to 9DHow it will be judged
The normalized reward traces of fig9a-reward-firing (same readings); pre is the 250-ms bin before advance and post the first 250-ms bin after (Methods, Population and single-unit firing analyses); studentized bootstrap 95% CIs over units. Reproduced when the Bidirectional Valence pre CI contains zero, the post and difference CIs exclude zero with means within tolerance, and all six Threat Inhibited and Danger Excited CIs (pre, post, difference) contain zero; partially reproduced when the Bidirectional Valence part holds and a Threat Inhibited or Danger Excited CI excludes zero.
- fig9efg-reward-cue-correlations
Bidirectional Valence reward onset firing correlated positively with safety onset firing and negatively with danger firing, and the two correlations differed; in Threat Inhibited units only the danger correlation was significant and the two did not differ, and in Danger Excited units neither was significant though they differed.
Bidirectional Valence neurons (Fig. 9G) showed a significant, positive relationship between reward onset firing and safety onset firing
Results, Reward-related firing confirms NAcc threat and Bidirectional Valence populations, paragraphs 3 and 4; Figure 9E to 9GHow it will be judged
Per unit, reward onset firing (first 250-ms bin after advance, fig9a-reward-firing readings), safety onset firing (first 1 s) and danger firing (10-s cue), normalized; Pearson correlation within each population (Methods, Population and single-unit firing analyses). The comparison of the two correlations is open; (a) Fisher r-to-z for independent correlations; (b) a test for dependent correlations sharing a variable (Steiger). Reproduced when, for Bidirectional Valence, the safety correlation is positive and the danger correlation negative, each with p < 0.05, and the comparison has p < 0.05, and Threat Inhibited shows no difference between the correlations at p < 0.05 (the paper's test for its absence); partially reproduced when the Bidirectional Valence part holds and the Threat Inhibited or Danger Excited pattern of the statement does not (Threat Inhibited safety correlation p >= 0.05; Danger Excited correlations each p >= 0.05 with the comparison p < 0.05). The Threat Inhibited danger correlation, p = 0.05 in the paper and called significant there, is reported and not judged. The R2 values are reported against their tolerances.
- fig9hij-danger-safety-correlations
Danger firing correlated negatively with safety onset firing in Danger Excited and Bidirectional Valence units but not in Threat Inhibited units.
While Threat Inhibited neurons (R2 = 0.06, p = 0.24; ... showed zero firing relationship, Danger Excited neurons ... and Bidirectional Valence neurons (R2 = 0.06, p = 0.015; Fig. 9J) showed significant, negative firing relationships
Results, Reward-related firing confirms NAcc threat and Bidirectional Valence populations, paragraph 4; Figure 9H to 9JHow it will be judged
Per unit, normalized danger firing over the 10-s cue and safety onset firing (first 1 s); Pearson correlation within each population. Reproduced when Danger Excited and Bidirectional Valence correlations are negative with p < 0.05 and the Threat Inhibited correlation has p >= 0.05 (the paper's test for its absence); the R2 values are reported against their tolerances.
- fig10a-poke-cessation-anova
The three populations showed minimal firing changes around nose poke cessation in the ITI; there was no main effect of interval, and a population by interval interaction driven by modest Bidirectional Valence increases.
NAcc populations showed minimal firing changes around periods of natural nose poke cessation occurring during the intertrial intervals
Results, Reward-related firing confirms NAcc threat and Bidirectional Valence populations, paragraph 5; Figure 10AHow it will be judged
Cessation events are a poke followed by at least 2 s without a poke, in the ITI (Methods); 16 bins of 250 ms from 2 s before to 2 s after the poke, minus the mean of the 1 s before, normalized with the readings of fig9a-reward-firing (ITI definition and normalization). Mixed ANOVA, population between and bin within. Reproduced when the interval effect has p >= 0.05 (the paper's test for its absence) and the interaction has p < 0.05.
- fig10bcd-poke-cessation-pre-post
Pre and post nose poke cessation firing differed neither from zero nor from each other in Threat Inhibited and Danger Excited units; in Bidirectional Valence units both exceeded zero but did not differ.
Pre- and post-nose poke cessation firing both exceeded zero, but did not differ from each other for Bidirectional Valence neurons
Results, Reward-related firing confirms NAcc threat and Bidirectional Valence populations, paragraph 5; Figure 10B to 10DHow it will be judged
Pre is the 250-ms bin before cessation and post the first 250-ms bin after; studentized bootstrap 95% CIs over units for pre, post and post minus pre. Reproduced when the six Threat Inhibited and Danger Excited CIs contain zero, and the Bidirectional Valence pre and post CIs exclude zero above it with the difference CI containing zero.
Pipeline
- Paper
- waiting (not checked)
- Claims
- done
- Claims check
- done (ready)
- Attempt
- todo
- Questions
- none
- Verified
- none