Claims 20
From the paper Early adolescent adversity alters periaqueductal gray/dorsal raphe threat responding in ad · claims file · checked 2026-11-06: ready
- fig1bc-adversity-slows-weight-gain
Early adolescent adversity slowed body weight gain. Body weight showed a group by day interaction, and Control rats gained more weight from P24 to P35 (P35/P24) than EAA rats; weights were equivalent before adversity and in adulthood.
Body weights were equivalent prior to adversity, weight gain slowed in EAA rats, but body weights were equivalent between groups in adulthood. ... found a significant group × day interaction (F 13,234 = 4.20, p = 3.00 × 10 –6 ... Independent samples t test for body weight change found a significant difference between groups (t 18 = 6.11, p = 9.00 × 10 –6
Results, first paragraph (before the heading Higher proportion of EAA cue-responsive neurons); Figure 1B and 1CHow it will be judged
As the Methods (Body weight) say. A repeated-measures ANOVA of body weight on day (14 weighing days, P24 to P55) by group, and an independent samples t test of P35 weight divided by P24 weight between groups. Reproduced when the interaction has p < 0.05 and the t test has p < 0.05 with the Control ratio higher. The sign of the difference is as Fig. 1C shows it (Control gained more).
- fig1ef-acquisition-equivalent-final
Both groups acquired fear discrimination over the eight pre-surgery sessions (danger > uncertainty > safety). EAA rats acquired it faster, giving a group by cue by session interaction, but in the final session there was a main effect of cue and no group by cue interaction.
EAA rats acquired discrimination faster than Controls, but discrimination levels were equivalent between groups by the final discrimination session ... found a group × cue × session interaction (F 14,252 = 1.99, p = 0.02 ... ANOVA restricted to the final discrimination session found a main effect of cue (F 2,36 = 151.45, p = 2.97 × 10 –18 ... but no group × cue interaction (F 2,36 = 1.55, p = 0.23
Results, paragraph 3 (Control and EAA rats acquired discrimination); Figure 1E and 1FHow it will be judged
Per rat, the mean suppression ratio per cue and session (Methods, Calculating suppression ratios), uncertainty shock and no-shock trials pooled. Reproduced when the three-way interaction has p < 0.05, the final-session cue effect has p < 0.05 with danger > uncertainty > safety in both groups, and the final-session group by cue interaction has p >= 0.05 (the absence part is judged on that ANOVA). Needs the eight pre-surgery sessions, which the data description does not list.
- fig2b-baseline-poke-equivalent
Control and EAA rats had equivalent baseline nose poke rates during recording sessions.
Control and EAA rats showed equivalent baseline nose poke rates (t 18 = 1.24, p = 0.23
Results, Higher proportion of EAA cue-responsive neurons, paragraph 1; Figure 2BHow it will be judged
A claim of absence, judged on the paper's test, an independent samples t test on one baseline nose poke rate per rat (two-sided, alpha 0.05). The only baseline poke window the Methods define is the 20 s before cue onset (Calculating suppression ratios), and that window is used. The paper does not say how sessions are combined; readings are the mean of the rat's session means and the mean over all its trials pooled. Reproduced when p >= 0.05; the group means are reported either way.
- fig2c-recording-discrimination
During recording sessions both groups showed high fear to danger, less to uncertainty and least to safety, with a main effect of cue, no group by cue interaction, and each cue pair differing in each group.
ANOVA for mean suppression ratios [factors ... found a main effect of cue (F 2,36 = 199.47, p = 3.33 × 10 –20 ... but no group × cue interaction (F 2,36 = 0.24, p = 0.79 ... Paired samples t tests confirmed differing ratios for each group and cue (danger vs. uncertainty; uncertainty vs. safety; all t > 3.00, all p ≤ 0.01)
Results, Higher proportion of EAA cue-responsive neurons, paragraph 1; Figure 2CHow it will be judged
Per rat, the mean suppression ratio for danger, uncertainty (shock and no-shock pooled) and safety over all its recording sessions (Fig. 2C legend). The paper does not say whether the rat's value is the mean of its session means or of all its trials pooled; both are readings. Mixed ANOVA, cue within, group between. Reproduced when the cue effect has p < 0.05, the group by cue interaction has p >= 0.05 (absence judged on that ANOVA), and all four paired t tests (two pairs in two groups) have p <= 0.01 with danger > uncertainty > safety. The reported p <= 0.01 is recorded as a bound.
- fig2d-cue-responsive-counts
32 of 151 Control neurons (21.2%) and 49 of 203 EAA neurons (24.1%) were cue-excited; 48 of 151 Control neurons (31.8%) and 84 of 203 EAA neurons (41.4%) were cue-inhibited.
We identified 32/151 Control neurons (21.2%) and 49/203 EAA neurons (24.1%) that were cue-excited ... We identified 48/151 Control neurons (31.8%) and 84/203 EAA neurons (41.4%) that were cue-inhibited
Results, Higher proportion of EAA cue-responsive neurons, paragraph 2; Figure 2DHow it will be judged
Selection as the Methods (Identifying cue-responsive neurons) and Results give it. Per neuron and cue (danger, uncertainty with its 16 trials pooled, safety), raw firing rate in the 10 s before cue onset against the rate in each of two cue epochs, dependent samples t test across trials, two-sided, at p < 0.0083 (0.05/6). Cue-excited is a significant increase in at least one of the six tests and no significant decrease; cue-inhibited the reverse; all other neurons are outside the criteria. The epochs differ between the texts. Readings are (a) first 1 s and last 5 s of the cue for both types (Methods, "first 1 s cue interval or the final 5 s cue interval"); (b) first 1 s and last 5 s for excitation, first 5 s and last 5 s for inhibition (Results); (c) the three epochs first 1 s, first 5 s and last 5 s for both types. Reproduced when all four counts are within tolerance under one reading, and the unit totals match exactly. The unit counts are a check of the data, not a finding.
- fig2d-higher-proportion-responsive
A higher proportion of EAA neurons than Control neurons were cue-responsive (133/203, 65.5%, against 80/151, 53.0%).
Combining the cue-excited and cue-inhibited populations in each group revealed a higher proportion of EAA cue-responsive neurons (133/203, 65.5%) compared to Controls (80/151, 53.0%); χ 2 = 5.68, p = 0.02
Results, Higher proportion of EAA cue-responsive neurons, paragraph 2; Figure 2DHow it will be judged
Cue-responsive is cue-excited plus cue-inhibited, under the readings of fig2d-cue-responsive-counts. A 2 by 2 Pearson chi-square test (responsive or not, by group) without continuity correction; the paper's counts give 5.68 only without the Yates correction, so that is the test the Methods' web calculator ran. Reproduced when both fractions are within tolerance and the test has p < 0.05 with EAA higher, under one reading.
- fig2ef-baseline-firing
Baseline firing rates did not differ between Control and EAA neurons of any functional type, while across groups baseline firing differed by functional type and was lowest for cue-excited neurons.
Independent samples t tests found no differences in baseline firing between Control and EAA cue-excited, cue-inhibited and neurons outside the selection criteria (all t < 1.10, all p > 0.25). By contrast, one-way ANOVA for the three functional neuron types, collapsing across Control and EAA groups found a main effect of functional type (F 2,346 = 7.35, p = 0.001). Baseline firing rates were lowest for cue-excited neurons.
Results, Higher proportion of EAA cue-responsive neurons, paragraph 3; Figure 2E and 2FHow it will be judged
Baseline firing per neuron, raw rate. The paper does not fix the window. Readings are (a) the 10 s before cue onset over all trials (the selection baseline); (b) the 2 s before cue onset (the normalization baseline). The group comparisons are a claim of absence, judged on three two-sided independent samples t tests at alpha 0.05 (the paper names no correction); the type effect is a one-way ANOVA over the three types, groups pooled. Reproduced when no t test has p < 0.05, the ANOVA has p < 0.05, and cue-excited neurons have the lowest mean, under one reading. The degrees of freedom (346 against 351 for 354 neurons) are reported as obtained.
- fig4ab-excited-temporal-pattern
Control and EAA cue-excited neurons differed in the temporal pattern of their cue-selective firing, a group by cue by bin interaction that held with bregma recording level as a factor.
Critically, the temporal pattern of selective firing differed for Control and EAA cue-excited neurons. ... revealed a group × cue × bin interaction (F 110,8360 = 3.32, p = 3.13 × 10 –28 ... The interaction held when bregma recording level was included as an ANOVA factor (F 110,8360 = 1.49, p = 0.001
Results, Inflated cue responses in EAA neurons, paragraph 1; Figure 4A and 4BHow it will be judged
Normalized firing (opening comment) for danger, uncertainty and safety, 56 bins of 250 ms from 2 s before cue onset to 2 s after cue offset; mixed ANOVA with cue and bin within neurons and group between. Reproduced when the group by cue by bin interaction has p < 0.05, both without and with bregma level (the four levels of the data description, a between factor) in the model; partially reproduced when only the first holds.
- fig4c-excited-inflated-onset
In the first 1 s of the cue, EAA cue-excited neurons fired more than Control neurons (main effect of group), with a significant group difference to safety; both groups still discriminated danger from uncertainty and uncertainty from safety.
ANOVA for the first 1 s cue interval revealed a main effect of group (F 1,79 = 4.96, p = 0.03 ... Compared to Controls, EAA neurons showed excessive firing to safety (Bonferroni-corrected, independent samples t test, t 79 = 3.61, p = 0.001; Fig. 4 C). Yet in the first 1 s of cue presentation, Control and EAA cue-excited neurons each showed cellular discrimination between danger and uncertainty (Bonferroni-corrected, paired samples t test, all t > 2.50, all p < 0.025), as well as uncertainty and safety (all t > 3.00, all p < 0.025)
Results, Inflated cue responses in EAA neurons, paragraph 1; Figure 4CHow it will be judged
Per neuron, the mean normalized firing over the four 250 ms bins of the first 1 s of each cue. Mixed ANOVA (cue within, group between); independent samples t tests per cue between groups at 0.05/3 (Methods, Population and single-unit firing analyses); paired t tests within each group at p < 0.025 (two pairs). Reproduced when the group effect has p < 0.05 with EAA higher, the safety t test passes the corrected level with EAA higher, and all four paired tests pass with danger > uncertainty > safety; partially reproduced when the group effect holds but one of the other parts fails.
- fig4de-inhibited-temporal-pattern
Control and EAA cue-inhibited neurons differed in the temporal pattern of their cue firing (a group by cue by bin interaction that held with bregma level as a factor). Control neurons decreased firing equally to danger and uncertainty with little change to safety, sustained over the cue; EAA neurons decreased most to danger, less to uncertainty, mostly in the first half of the cue.
EAA cue-inhibited neurons showed enhanced decreases in firing to danger, lesser decreases in firing to uncertainty and little change to safety ... revealed a group × cue × bin interaction (F 110,14190 = 1.69, p = 9.00 × 10 –6 ... The interaction was observed when bregma recording level was included as an ANOVA factor (F 110,13970 = 1.34, p = 0.01
Results, Inflated cue responses in EAA neurons, paragraph 2; Figure 4D and 4EHow it will be judged
As fig4ab-excited-temporal-pattern, on cue-inhibited neurons. Reproduced when the interaction has p < 0.05 without and with bregma level; partially reproduced when only the first holds. The descriptive pattern is reported from the population means.
- fig4f-inhibited-danger-decrease
In the first 5 s of the cue, EAA cue-inhibited neurons decreased firing more than Control neurons (main effect of group), with a greater decrease to danger; the group difference to uncertainty fell short of the corrected level.
EAA cue-inhibited neurons also showed greater decreases in firing to danger compared to Control neurons (Bonferroni-corrected, independent samples t test, t 130 = 2.70, p = 0.008; Fig. 4 F). The group difference in firing to uncertainty fell short of the Bonferroni-corrected p value (t 130 = 2.38, p = 0.019). Finally, ANOVA for mean firing over the first 5 s of cue presentation revealed a main effect of group (F 1,130 = 10.82, p = 0.001
Results, Inflated cue responses in EAA neurons, paragraph 2; Figure 4FHow it will be judged
Per neuron, mean normalized firing over the 20 bins of the first 5 s of each cue. Mixed ANOVA (cue within, group between) and independent samples t tests per cue at 0.05/3. Reproduced when the group effect has p < 0.05 with EAA lower and the danger t test has p < 0.0167 with EAA lower. The uncertainty difference is reported; it does not decide the claim.
- fig4f-inhibited-danger-uncertainty-discrimination
In the first half of the cue, EAA cue-inhibited neurons discriminated danger from uncertainty, while Control cue-inhibited neurons did not.
Supporting an interaction, EAA cue-inhibited neurons (Bonferroni-corrected, paired samples t test, t 83 = 3.14, p = 0.002), but not Control cue-inhibited neurons (t 47 = 1.40, p = 0.17), showed cellular discrimination between danger and uncertainty in the first half of cue presentation.
Results, Inflated cue responses in EAA neurons, paragraph 2; Figure 4D to 4FHow it will be judged
Per neuron, mean normalized firing over the first 5 s of danger and of uncertainty; a paired t test in each group. The paper does not give the Bonferroni divisor. Readings are (a) 0.05/2 (two groups) and (b) 0.05/3 (three cue pairs). The Control part is a claim of absence, judged on the same test. Reproduced when the EAA test passes the corrected level with danger lower and the Control test does not; the effect sizes are reported either way.
- fig5abc-excited-reduced-threat-probability
Control cue-excited neurons signaled threat probability (positive betas from cue onset, rising over the cue) with fear output betas near zero; EAA cue-excited neurons showed lower threat probability betas and similar fear output betas, a group by regressor interaction.
EAA cue-excited neurons showed diminished threat probability signaling (Fig. 5 B). ... revealed a group × regressor interaction (F 1,65 = 6.80, p = 0.01 ... The mean beta coefficient for the entirety of cue presentation differed for threat probability (independent samples t test, t 66 = 2.71, p = 0.01), but not fear output (t 66 = 0.17, p = 0.86), between Control and EAA cue-excited neurons
Results, Diminished threat probability signaling in EAA cue-excited neurons, paragraph 2; Figure 5A to 5CHow it will be judged
Regression as in the opening comment, per neuron and 1 s cue interval, under the readings named there (trial-wise firing, empty-poke trials, window beta). Mixed ANOVA of betas with interval and regressor within, group between. Reproduced when the group by regressor interaction has p < 0.05, the whole-cue threat probability beta is higher in Control (t test p < 0.05), and the fear output betas do not differ (t test p >= 0.05, judged on that test), under one reading; partially reproduced when the threat probability difference holds but the interaction does not. Degrees of freedom are reported as obtained (opening comment).
- fig5d-threat-tuning-curve
The threat tuning curve of cue-excited neurons peaked at an uncertainty assignment of 0.500 in both groups; the EAA curve had the same shape but was lower across all assignments (main effect of assignment and of group, no interaction).
The tuning curve for EAA cue-excited neurons was identical in shape, but was diminished across all assignments. ... revealed a main effect of assignment (F 8,624 = 18.88, p = 1.71 × 10 –25 ... but most critically a main effect of group (F 1,78 = 4.01, p = 0.049 ... and no group × assignment interaction (F 8,624 = 1.25, p = 0.27
Results, Diminished threat probability signaling in EAA cue-excited neurons, paragraphs 3 and 4; Figure 5DHow it will be judged
As the Methods (Threat probability tuning curve) say, nine regressions per neuron with the uncertainty value set to 0 to 1 in steps of 0.125, each 1 s interval, the beta for threat probability averaged over the 10 intervals; the curve is the mean over neurons. The peak is on a grid of nine values, so its tolerance is zero. Reproduced when both peaks are at 0.500, the assignment and group effects have p < 0.05 with EAA lower, and the interaction has p >= 0.05 (absence judged on that ANOVA), under one reading of the opening comment; partially reproduced when the group effect holds and a peak falls at 0.375 or 0.625.
- figs4-peak-assignment-same-pattern
Using the peak uncertainty assignment (0.500) in place of the actual probability gave the same pattern of threat probability signaling in cue-excited neurons and of fear output signaling in cue-inhibited neurons.
Importantly, using the peak uncertainty assignment for linear regression returned an identical pattern of threat probability signaling as did the actual uncertainty assignment
Results, Diminished threat probability signaling, paragraph 4, and Enhanced fear output signaling, paragraph 1; Supplementary Figure S4 (not in the text supplied)How it will be judged
The tests of fig5abc-excited-reduced-threat-probability and fig5efg-inhibited-fear-output, rerun with the uncertainty value 0.500. The supplement was not available, so which statistics Fig. S4 shows is not known. Reproduced when the significance and direction of the whole-cue threat probability group difference (cue-excited) and of the last-5 s fear output group difference (cue-inhibited) are as with 0.375.
- fig5efg-inhibited-fear-output
Control cue-inhibited neurons signaled a mix of threat probability and fear output (negative betas for both). In EAA cue-inhibited neurons the signals diverged in the second half of the cue, fear output persisting and threat probability diminishing (group by regressor by interval interaction); fear output betas in the last 5 s were more negative in EAA, threat probability betas did not differ.
Signals diverged thereafter, with fear output persisting and threat probability diminishing (Fig. 5 F). ... revealed a group × regressor × interval interaction (F 9,1170 = 2.14, p = 0.02 ... Mean beta coefficient for fear output was more negative in EAA cue-inhibited neurons compared to Control neurons for the last half of cue presentation (independent samples t test, t 130 = 2.31, p = 0.02; Fig. 5 G). Beta coefficients for threat probability in the same period did not differ (t 130 = 0.81, p = 0.42).
Results, Enhanced fear output signaling in EAA cue-inhibited neurons, paragraph 1; Figure 5E to 5GHow it will be judged
Regression as in fig5abc-excited-reduced-threat-probability, on cue-inhibited neurons; the last 5 s window beta under the readings of the opening comment. Reproduced when the three-way interaction has p < 0.05, the last-5 s fear output beta is more negative in EAA (t test p < 0.05), and the threat probability betas do not differ (p >= 0.05, judged on that test), under one reading; partially reproduced when the fear output difference holds without the interaction.
- fig6-excited-firing-threat-decoupled
In Control cue-excited neurons, danger and uncertainty firing in the first 1 s of the cue predicted the whole-cue threat probability beta; in EAA cue-excited neurons they did not, and the relationships differed between groups. Safety firing was unrelated in both groups, and that relationship did not differ between groups.
Danger firing and threat probability signaling were coupled in Control cue-excited neurons ... (R 2 = 0.56, p = 7.54 × 10 –7 ; Fig. 6 A). ... (R 2 = 0.01, p = 0.61; Fig. 6 B). Importantly, the relationship between danger firing and threat probability signaling significantly differed between Control and EAA cue-excited neurons (Fisher r-to-z transformation, Z = 3.80, p = 0.0001). ... Control cue-excited neurons showed a positive relationship (R 2 = 0.22, p = 0.007; Fig. 6 C), EAA cue-excited neurons showed zero relationship (R 2 = 0.05, p = 0.14; Fig. 6 D) and these relationships significantly differed (Fisher r-to-z transformation, Z = 3.05, p = 0.0011). Safety firing and threat probability signaling were not related in either population
Results, Cue firing and threat probability signaling decoupled in EAA cue-excited neurons, paragraph 1; Figure 6A to 6FHow it will be judged
Per neuron, first 1 s normalized firing to each cue (as fig4c) against the whole-cue threat probability beta (as fig5abc), Pearson correlation per group and cue; groups compared by Fisher r-to-z. The paper's p values for Z = 3.80 and 3.05 match the one-tailed p of the normal distribution (7e-5 and 0.0011), so the comparison is one-tailed, as the vassarstats page gives it. Reproduced when, under one reading, the Control danger and uncertainty correlations are positive with p < 0.05, the EAA ones have p >= 0.05, both r-to-z comparisons have one-tailed p < 0.05, the safety correlations have p >= 0.05 in both groups, and the safety r-to-z comparison has p >= 0.05 (absence judged one-tailed, as for the other two comparisons; two-tailed shown); partially reproduced when the danger part holds and the uncertainty part does not. The Control R2 values are given as expected values for comparison; the claim is decided by the tests.
- fig7-inhibited-firing-fear-output
In cue-inhibited neurons, last-5 s danger firing did not predict the last-5 s fear output beta in either group; uncertainty firing predicted it positively in EAA but not in Control neurons, and safety firing predicted it negatively in both groups; none of these relationships differed between groups.
Degree of danger firing failed to predict fear output signaling in either population (Control ... R 2 = 0.004, p = 0.67; EAA ... R 2 = 0.02, p = 0.24; Fig. 7 A, B) and these relationships did not differ (Fisher r-to-z transformation, Z = 1.04, p = 0.15). EAA cue-inhibited neurons, but not Control, showed a positive predictive relationship between uncertainty firing and fear output (Control ... R 2 = 0.04, p = 0.16; EAA ... R 2 = 0. 20, p = 2.59 × 10 –5 ... but these relationships did not differ between groups (Fisher r-to-z transformation, Z = 1.43, p = 0.08). Equivalent negative predictive relationships between safety firing and fear output signaling were also found in both groups (Fisher r-to-z transformation, Z = 0.60, p = 0.54).
Results, Cue firing and fear output signaling coupled in EAA cue-inhibited neurons, paragraph 1; Figure 7A to 7FHow it will be judged
Per neuron, last-5 s normalized firing to each cue (mean of the last 20 bins of the cue) against the last-5 s fear output beta (as fig5efg), Pearson correlation per group and cue, groups compared by Fisher r-to-z. The paper's r-to-z p values are one-tailed for Z = 1.04 and 1.43 (0.149 and 0.076) and two-tailed for Z = 0.60 (0.549); its own threshold is p < 0.05. The absence parts (danger in both groups, uncertainty in Control, the three group comparisons) are judged on these tests, the danger and uncertainty comparisons one-tailed and the safety comparison two-tailed, as the paper's p values show; the other tail is shown. Reproduced when the danger correlations have p >= 0.05, the EAA uncertainty correlation is positive with p < 0.05 and the Control one has p >= 0.05, both safety correlations are negative with p < 0.05, and no comparison has p < 0.05; partially reproduced when the safety and uncertainty parts hold but one other part fails.
- figs6-inhibited-firing-threat-probability
In cue-inhibited neurons, cue firing also predicted threat probability signaling in both groups, with no difference between Control and EAA for any relationship.
Cue firing was also predictive of threat probability signaling in both groups (see Supplementary Fig. S6 online), but there were no differences between Control and EAA cue-inhibited neurons for any predictive relationship.
Results, Cue firing and fear output signaling coupled in EAA cue-inhibited neurons, paragraph 1; Supplementary Figure S6 (not in the text supplied)How it will be judged
As fig7-inhibited-firing-fear-output with the last-5 s threat probability beta. The supplement was not available, so which cues show the relationship is not known. Reproduced when at least one cue's correlation has p < 0.05 in each group and no Fisher r-to-z comparison has p < 0.05 (absence judged on that test, one-tailed and two-tailed both shown).
Pipeline
- Paper
- waiting (not checked)
- Claims
- done
- Claims check
- done (ready)
- Attempt
- todo
- Questions
- none
- Verified
- none