Claims 35
From the paper The impact of a psychedelic drug on olfactory search behavior by mice · claims file · checked 2026-10-21: ready
- fig1b-accuracy-lower-doi
Mice are less accurate in the olfactory search task in the DOI session than in the saline session, going more often to the incorrect side.
Indeed, mice more often navigated to the incorrect side of the arena in the DOI condition ( Figure 1B ; Wilcoxon signed rank test, p = 0.024, n = 22)
Results, DOI alters olfactory search behavior, paragraph 2; Figure 1BHow it will be judged
As the Methods (Figure 1) and fig1_cleaned.Rmd define it, accuracy is the percent of a session's odor trials (odor_setting 0) that were correct, sessions with fewer than 40 trials dropped. A two-sided paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test of DOI against saline accuracy over the mice. Reproduced when the median DOI minus saline difference is negative and p < 0.05; partially reproduced when it is negative with 0.05 <= p < 0.1. Omission-trial accuracy, which the code also tests, is reported as a variant.
- fig1c-accuracy-time-bins
Over the session, odor-trial accuracy in 5 min bins is higher in the saline condition than the DOI condition after the first 10 min, except in the 30 to 35 min bin, so the effect is spread across the session.
In odor trials, accuracy was higher in the saline condition after the first 10 min, except for the 30 – 35 min bin ( Figure 1C ; Wilcoxon rank-sum test, p < 0.01 for time points within 10 – 25 min, p = 0.039 for 35 – 40 min)
Results, DOI alters olfactory search behavior, paragraph 2; Figure 1CHow it will be judged
As in the Methods (Figure 1) and fig1_cleaned.Rmd. Odor trials only; for each trial the rolling accuracy, the percent correct of the session's odor trials up to and including that one; trials binned by start time into 5 min bins from 0 to 40 min; per mouse and bin, the mean rolling accuracy; per bin, a two-sided unpaired Wilcoxon rank-sum test of DOI against saline mouse values, uncorrected (the Methods give the rank-sum test because some mice have no trials in some bins). Reproduced when saline is higher at p < 0.05 in the bins 10 to 15, 15 to 20, 20 to 25 and 35 to 40 min, with p < 0.01 in the first three, and the 30 to 35 min bin is not significant; partially reproduced when saline is higher at p < 0.05 in at least two of those four bins. The 0 to 10 min and 25 to 30 min bins, which the text does not state separately, are reported. The per-bin fraction correct (not rolling) is shown as a variant.
- fig1d-fewer-trials
Mice complete fewer trials in the 40 min DOI session than in the saline session.
Mice completed fewer trials in the DOI condition ( Figure 1D ; Wilcoxon signed rank test, p = 0.011, n = 22)
Results, DOI alters olfactory search behavior, paragraph 3; Figure 1DHow it will be judged
Trials completed is the number of trials in the session (the Methods, Figure 1, "the sum of all trials in a session"). fig1_cleaned.Rmd counts only the odor trials (odor_setting 0) for this test, while the Methods' wording counts all trials; both are run, readings (a) odor trials, the code, and (b) all trials, the Methods. A two-sided paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test over the 22 mice. Reproduced when, under a reading, DOI is lower with p < 0.05.
- fig1d-fewer-trials-females-only
The drop in trials completed under DOI is driven by females; female mice perform fewer trials on DOI than saline, while male mice show no significant difference.
This effect was driven by female mice; female mice performed fewer trials on DOI compared to saline ( Figure 1D ; Wilcoxon signed rank test, p = 0.011, n = 12), whereas male mice did not show a significant difference ( Figure 1D ; Wilcoxon signed rank test, p = 0.39, n = 10)
Results, DOI alters olfactory search behavior, paragraph 3; Figure 1DHow it will be judged
The trial counts of fig1d-fewer-trials under both of its readings, split by sex (females as listed in the opening comment, from the code). Two-sided paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests within each sex, as in fig1_cleaned.Rmd. Reproduced when, under a reading, females are lower on DOI at p < 0.05 and males do not differ at p < 0.05; partially reproduced when only one of the two holds.
- fig1e-repoke-no-difference
Mice poke into the initiation port during the ITI at the same rate in the DOI and saline conditions, showing an equivalent motivation to do the task.
We found that mice poked into the initiation port, but there was not a significant difference between conditions ( Figure 1E ; Wilcoxon signed rank test, p = 0.27, n = 17)
Results, DOI alters olfactory search behavior, paragraph 3; Figure 1EHow it will be judged
A claim of absence. As in the Figure 1E legend and fig1_cleaned.Rmd, the repoke rate is the session's number of initiation-port pokes during ITIs divided by the number of ITIs (trials minus one), for the 17 mice after the first cohort. Two-sided paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test, DOI against saline. Reproduced when p >= 0.05, not reproduced when p < 0.05; the median difference is reported either way.
- iti-false-report-no-difference
Mice rarely enter a reward port during the ITI after a trial-initiation attempt, and DOI does not make them do so more than saline.
Mice rarely entered the reward port during the ITI after trial initiation attempt (Wilcoxon rank sum test, p = 1)
Results, DOI alters olfactory search behavior, paragraph 4How it will be judged
A claim of absence. The Methods (Figure 1) define a false odor report as an initiation-port beam break followed by crossing the decision line during the ITI, for the 17 mice after the first cohort; the code in the repository does not compute it (the trial table of the later cohort has a false_alarm column, which is used if the dataset holds it). The per-mouse measure is not fixed; readings (a) the count of false reports per session and (b) that count divided by the number of ITIs. The paper's test, a two-sided unpaired Wilcoxon rank-sum test of DOI against saline sessions. Reproduced when p >= 0.05 under the readings, not reproduced when p < 0.05; the counts per session are reported to show whether they are rare. The Results describe the event as entering the reward port during the ITI after an initiation attempt; that count is shown as a variant, the Methods' definition deciding. "Rarely" has no threshold in the paper and is not judged.
- fig2a-correct-port-duration-doi-odor
After correct trials, mice stay longer in the reward port on DOI odor trials than on saline odor trials and saline omission trials.
Reward port duration was increased in the DOI odor trial condition compared to both saline odor and saline odor omission trials ( Figure 2A ; Wilcoxon rank sum test, p < 0.001, n = 17)
Results, DOI impacts speed and timing, paragraph 1; Figure 2AHow it will be judged
Reward-port duration after a correct trial is the time from entering the reward port to exiting it, re-entries not added (Methods, Figure 2), for the 17 mice after the first cohort. Every event is a sample, pooled over mice, in four groups (DOI odor, DOI omission, saline odor, saline omission). As the Methods and fig2_cleaned.Rmd do, a Kruskal-Wallis test over the four groups, then pairwise two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum tests with Bonferroni adjustment over the six pairs (R pairwise.wilcox.test). Reproduced when DOI odor durations are higher than both saline groups at adjusted p < 0.001; partially reproduced when both hold at adjusted p < 0.05, or only one at p < 0.001. Which port entry counts is not fixed by the paper (the files the code reads are pre-computed); readings (a) the first reward-port entry after the trial's response, (b) the first entry within the 5 s window the Methods give for collecting a reward. The per-mouse medians of fig2b are reported alongside.
- fig2a-supp-no-sex-effect
Reward-port duration after correct trials does not depend on sex in either condition.
We did not find a sex effect of condition ( Figure 2A supplemental , p = 1)
Results, DOI impacts speed and timing, paragraph 1; Figure 2A supplementalHow it will be judged
A claim of absence. The events of fig2a, grouped by condition and sex (DOI female, DOI male, saline female, saline male). The paper does not name the test. Readings (a) a Kruskal-Wallis test over the four groups, as fig2_cleaned.Rmd runs it; (b) pairwise two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum tests with Bonferroni adjustment over the six pairs, as the Methods give for the duration groups and as the Results name for the matching test of Figure 2C, judged on female against male within each condition. Reproduced when no reading finds a sex difference at p < 0.05, not reproduced when every reading does; when they disagree, blocked as methods_underspecified with both results shown. The p-values are reported.
- fig2b-median-port-duration-correct
Per mouse, the median reward-port duration after correct trials is longer in the DOI session than in the saline session.
When comparing the median duration between conditions, mice in the DOI condition spent longer in the reward port compared to saline ( Figure 2B ; Wilcoxon signed rank test, p = 0.002)
Results, DOI impacts speed and timing, paragraph 1; Figure 2BHow it will be judged
The correct-trial events of fig2a, odor and omission trials together; per mouse and condition the median duration; a two-sided paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test, DOI against saline, as in fig2_cleaned.Rmd. Reproduced when DOI is higher with p < 0.05.
- fig2b-supp-odor-trials-longer
The longer median reward-port duration under DOI is driven by odor trials.
This effect was driven by the odor trial ( Figure 2B supplemental ; Wilcoxon signed rank test, p = 0.001)
Results, DOI impacts speed and timing, paragraph 1; Figure 2B supplementalHow it will be judged
As fig2b, with odor trials only, as in fig2_cleaned.Rmd. Reproduced when DOI is higher with p < 0.05.
- fig2b-supp-omission-no-difference
After correct omission trials, the median reward-port duration does not differ between DOI and saline.
as we did not see a difference between median duration after an omission trial (Wilcoxon signed rank test, p = 0.60)
Results, DOI impacts speed and timing, paragraph 1How it will be judged
A claim of absence. As fig2b, with omission trials only, mice without events in both conditions dropped, as in fig2_cleaned.Rmd; two-sided paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Reproduced when p >= 0.05, not reproduced when p < 0.05; the median difference is reported.
- fig2c-incorrect-port-duration
After incorrect (unrewarded) trials, mice stay longest in the reward port on DOI odor trials, longer than on DOI omission, saline odor and saline omission trials, and longer on saline odor than saline omission trials.
We found an increased duration in DOI odor trials compared to DOI odor omission trials ( Figure 2C ; Wilcoxon rank sum test for all comparisons, p < 0.001), saline odor trials (p = 0.030), and saline odor omission trials (p < 0.001). Additionally, there was an increased reward port duration for the saline odor trial compared to the saline odor omission trial (p < 0.001)
Results, DOI impacts speed and timing, paragraph 2; Figure 2CHow it will be judged
As fig2a (same duration definition, same port-entry readings, same Kruskal-Wallis and Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise rank-sum tests over the four groups, as in the Methods and fig2_cleaned.Rmd), with the events after incorrect trials. Reproduced when all four stated comparisons go in the stated direction at adjusted p < 0.05; partially reproduced when three of the four do.
- fig2c-supp-no-sex-difference
After incorrect trials, reward-port duration does not differ between the sexes within either condition.
Sex differences within each condition were not significant ( Figure 2C supplemental , Wilcoxon rank sum, p = 1)
Results, DOI impacts speed and timing, paragraph 2; Figure 2C supplementalHow it will be judged
A claim of absence, judged on the paper's named test. The incorrect-trial events grouped by condition and sex; pairwise two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum tests with Bonferroni adjustment over the six pairs of the four groups (the Methods' post hoc test); female against male within DOI and within saline. Reproduced when neither is significant at adjusted p < 0.05, not reproduced when either is. The Kruskal-Wallis test over the four groups, which fig2_cleaned.Rmd runs, is shown as a variant.
- fig2d-median-incorrect-no-difference
Per mouse, the median reward-port duration after incorrect trials does not differ between DOI and saline.
When comparing the median duration between conditions, there was no difference between DOI and saline ( Figure 2D ; Wilcoxon signed rank test, p = 0.21)
Results, DOI impacts speed and timing, paragraph 2; Figure 2DHow it will be judged
A claim of absence. Per mouse and condition the median duration over incorrect-trial events, odor and omission together; two-sided paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test, mice without both values dropped, as in fig2_cleaned.Rmd. Reproduced when p >= 0.05, not reproduced when p < 0.05; the median difference is reported.
- fig2d-supp-omission-longer
After incorrect omission trials, mice stay longer in the reward port in the DOI condition than in the saline condition.
However, after an odor omission trial, mice spent longer in the reward port in the DOI condition ( Figure 2D supplemental , Wilcoxon signed rank test, p = 0.049)
Results, DOI impacts speed and timing, paragraph 2; Figure 2D supplementalHow it will be judged
As fig2d, with incorrect omission trials only, mice without both values dropped, as in fig2_cleaned.Rmd. Reproduced when DOI is higher with p < 0.05; partially reproduced when it is higher with 0.05 <= p < 0.1.
- fig3a-odor-trial-duration-longer
Mice take longer to complete odor trials in the DOI condition than in the saline condition.
In odor trials, mice took longer to complete a trial in the DOI condition compared to the saline condition ( Figure 3A ; Wilcoxon signed rank test, p < 0.001, n = 22)
Results, DOI impacts speed and timing, paragraph 3; Figure 3AHow it will be judged
Trial duration is trial end minus trial start; per mouse and condition the mean over odor trials (Methods, Figure 3; fig3_cleaned.Rmd); two-sided paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Reproduced when DOI is longer with p < 0.05.
- fig3a-omission-duration-no-difference
The duration of omission trials does not differ between DOI and saline.
In contrast, there was no difference in trial duration in omission trials between DOI and saline (Wilcoxon signed rank test, p = 0.26, n = 22)
Results, DOI impacts speed and timing, paragraph 3How it will be judged
A claim of absence. As fig3a with omission trials. Reproduced when p >= 0.05, not reproduced when p < 0.05; the median difference is reported.
- fig3b-iti-duration-no-difference
ITI duration does not differ between DOI and saline.
However, there was no difference in ITI duration between conditions ( Figure 3B ; Wilcoxon signed rank test, p = 0.19, n = 22)
Results, DOI impacts speed and timing, paragraph 3; Figure 3BHow it will be judged
A claim of absence. ITI duration is the next trial's start minus this trial's end (Methods, Figure 3); per mouse and condition the mean over all trials of the session, as in fig3_cleaned.Rmd; two-sided paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Reproduced when p >= 0.05, not reproduced when p < 0.05; the median difference is reported.
- fig3c-speed-within-trial-lower
DOI lowers movement speed within trials, odor and omission trials pooled, compared with saline.
We found that DOI decreased movement speed both within trial ( Figure 3C ; Wilcoxon rank sum test, p = 0.011, pooled trial type)
Results, DOI impacts speed and timing, paragraph 4; Figure 3CHow it will be judged
Nose-keypoint speed as in the Methods (Figure 3) and fig3_cleaned.Rmd (see the opening comment), per mouse and condition the mean over the frames within any trial. The Results name the rank-sum test; the Methods ("For trial durations, ITI duration, and overall task speed, Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used") and the code use the two-sided paired signed-rank test, which decides here, the Methods coming first; the unpaired rank-sum test is shown as a variant. Reproduced when DOI is lower with p < 0.05.
- fig3d-speed-iti-lower
DOI lowers movement speed during the ITI compared with saline.
and during the ITI ( Figure 3D ; Wilcoxon rank sum test, p = 0.036) compared to saline
Results, DOI impacts speed and timing, paragraph 4; Figure 3DHow it will be judged
As fig3c, with the frames outside every trial. Reproduced when DOI is lower with p < 0.05 under the paired signed-rank test; the rank-sum test is shown as a variant.
- fig3supp-odor-trial-speed-no-difference
Within odor trials alone, speed does not differ between DOI and saline sessions.
In odor trials specifically, the speed between DOI and saline sessions were not different ( Figure 3 supplemental ; Wilcoxon rank sum test, p = 0.059)
Results, DOI impacts speed and timing, paragraph 4; Figure 3 supplementalHow it will be judged
A claim of absence. As fig3c with the frames of odor trials only. The Results name the rank-sum test; the Methods and fig3_cleaned.Rmd (which runs every pair of the six condition and period means as paired signed-rank tests, uncorrected) use the two-sided paired signed-rank test, which decides, the Methods coming first. Reproduced when p >= 0.05, not reproduced when p < 0.05. The rank-sum result and the median difference are reported.
- fig3supp-doi-iti-slower-than-odor
Within the DOI condition, mice move more slowly in the ITI than in odor trials.
Within the DOI condition, speed was decreased in the ITI compared to an odor trial ( Figure 3 supplemental ; Wilcoxon signed rank test, p < 0.001)
Results, DOI impacts speed and timing, paragraph 4; Figure 3 supplementalHow it will be judged
Per mouse, DOI session mean speeds over ITI frames and over odor-trial frames (as fig3c); two-sided paired signed-rank test, as in fig3_cleaned.Rmd. Reproduced when ITI is slower with p < 0.05.
- fig3supp-doi-omission-no-difference
Within the DOI condition, speed does not differ between odor and omission trials, nor between the ITI and omission trials.
However, there was no difference in speed between the odor and odor omission trials in the DOI condition (Wilcoxon rank sum test, p = 0.21), nor the ITI and odor omission trials (Wilcoxon rank sum, p = 0.068)
Results, DOI impacts speed and timing, paragraph 4How it will be judged
A claim of absence, for two comparisons. Per-mouse DOI session mean speeds over odor-trial, omission-trial and ITI frames (as fig3c); two-sided paired signed-rank tests, the Methods' test and the code's, uncorrected; the rank-sum tests the Results name are shown as variants. Reproduced when neither comparison has p < 0.05; partially reproduced when one does; not reproduced when both do. Effect sizes are reported.
- fig3supp-saline-iti-slower
In saline sessions, mice move more slowly in the ITI than in odor trials and in omission trials.
In comparison, in saline sessions the ITI speed was slower compared to odor (p = 0.002) and odor omission trials (p = 0.017)
Results, DOI impacts speed and timing, paragraph 4How it will be judged
Per-mouse saline session mean speeds over ITI, odor-trial and omission-trial frames (as fig3c); two-sided paired signed-rank tests, uncorrected, as in fig3_cleaned.Rmd and the Methods; the rank-sum test is shown as a variant. Reproduced when the ITI is slower than both at p < 0.05; partially reproduced when it is slower than one.
- fig3supp-saline-odor-omission-no-difference
In saline sessions, speed does not differ between odor and omission trials.
Speed within the odor and odor omission trials were not different in the saline condition (Wilcoxon rank sum, p = 0.54)
Results, DOI impacts speed and timing, paragraph 4How it will be judged
A claim of absence. Per-mouse saline session mean speeds over odor-trial and omission-trial frames (as fig3c); two-sided paired signed-rank test, the Methods' and code's; the rank-sum test is shown as a variant. Reproduced when p >= 0.05, not reproduced when p < 0.05; the median difference is reported.
- fig4abc-sniff-frequency-higher
Pooling all sessions with a usable sniff signal, sniff frequency is higher in DOI sessions than in saline sessions.
When all sessions with sniff measurement were combined, sniff frequency was higher in DOI sessions ( Figure 4A – C ; Fisher-Pitman Permutation test, Z = 24.9, p < 0.001)
Results, DOI increases sniff frequency, paragraph 1; Figure 4A to 4CHow it will be judged
Sniff frequency is 1000 over the interval in ms between consecutive inhalation times (Methods, Figure 4; fig4_cleaned.Rmd), sniffs with a missing exhalation dropped. Further exclusions from the Methods, applied when the dataset gives raw inhalation times; sniff durations below the 5th or above the 95th percentile, computed where the Methods do not say (the MATLAB code that applied it is not in the repository), so run under readings (a) per session and (b) over all sessions of a condition, and durations outside 10 to 1000, read as ms (the Methods print "s", which cannot hold for a sniff). Where the dataset holds only the thermistor signal, the Methods give a 25 ms moving-window smoothing and peak and trough detection, and the detection settings are open; the inhalation times are then a deviation. Sessions are those with a usable signal; the code drops DOI sessions 2195 17 and 2198 17 and saline sessions 2198 19 and 2213 18 as faulty, and the counts are compared with 14 and 13. Every sniff is a sample; a two-sample Fisher-Pitman permutation test (coin oneway_test, 10000 resamples) of DOI against saline. Reproduced when the DOI mean frequency is higher with p < 0.05.
- fig4supp-ks-every-mouse
Every mouse with matched DOI and saline sniff sessions has a sniff-frequency distribution shifted higher in the DOI condition.
All mice with a matched DOI and saline session had a higher-shifted distribution sniff rates in the DOI condition ( Figure 4 supplemental ; Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, p < 0.001 for 13 of 13 mice)
Results, DOI increases sniff frequency, paragraph 1; Figure 4 supplementalHow it will be judged
The sniff frequencies of fig4abc; for each mouse with usable DOI and saline sessions, a one-sided two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test that DOI frequencies are stochastically larger (R ks.test(doi, saline, alternative = "less"), as in fig4_cleaned.Rmd). Reproduced when every matched mouse has p < 0.001 and their number is within the tolerance; partially reproduced when at least two thirds of them do.
- fig4d-sniff-frequency-by-period
Mice sniff faster in the DOI condition in odor trials, in omission trials and during the ITI.
mice sniffed faster in the DOI condition for each trial type and during the ITI ( Figure 4D ; Fisher-Pitman Permutation test for all trial types; Odor trials: Z = 3.38, p < 0.001; Omission trials: Z = 2.71, p= 0.007; ITI: Z = 18.4, p < 0.001)
Results, DOI increases sniff frequency, paragraph 1; Figure 4DHow it will be judged
The sniffs of fig4abc, each placed by its inhalation time in an odor trial, an omission trial (between a trial's start and end) or the ITI (otherwise), as in fig4_cleaned.Rmd; a Fisher-Pitman permutation test (10000 resamples) of DOI against saline in each period. Reproduced when DOI is higher with p < 0.05 in all three; partially reproduced in two.
- fig4e-median-sniff-no-difference
Per-mouse median sniff frequency does not differ between DOI and saline.
We did not observe a difference in median sniff frequencies between conditions ( Figure 4E ; Wilcoxon signed rank test; p = 0.11)
Results, DOI increases sniff frequency, paragraph 1; Figure 4EHow it will be judged
A claim of absence. Per mouse and condition the median of the sniff frequencies of fig4abc; two-sided paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test over mice with both, as in fig4_cleaned.Rmd. Reproduced when p >= 0.05, not reproduced when p < 0.05; the median difference is reported.
- fig5ab-occupancy-similar
Mice occupy the arena similarly in the DOI and saline conditions; DOI does not make them spend more time in task-irrelevant areas such as the corners or spread more evenly.
Contrary to this prediction, mice showed similar occupancy across DOI and saline conditions ( Figure 5A, B )
Results, Mice occupy allocentric space similarly but head twitch preferentially in proximity to odor ports, paragraph 1; Figure 5A and 5BHow it will be judged
The paper reports no test. Occupancy is the fraction of a session's tracked frames in each 1 cm bin (48 pixels in fig5_cleaned.Rmd), from the nose keypoint, frames above 160 cm/s dropped, x flipped for the first cohort; the maps are the mean over the 22 mice (Figure 5A legend, Methods Figure 5, code). The measures come from the prediction the paper tested ("more time in areas irrelevant to the task such as corners of the arena, with a more even distribution"); per mouse and condition (a) the Shannon entropy of the occupancy map and (b) the fraction of frames in the four arena corners, with the corner size open, read as squares of 5 cm and of 10 cm side (choices, as the paper fixes none). Each is compared DOI against saline with a two-sided paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test, the Methods' paired test. Reproduced when no measure differs at p < 0.05; not reproduced when every one does, in either direction, as the claim is one of similar occupancy; otherwise blocked as methods_underspecified with all results shown. The Pearson correlation between the two grand-mean maps is reported as a description.
- fig5supp-htr-within-trial-x-not-y
During trials, HTR rate (normalized to occupancy) varies with the X coordinate of the arena but not with the Y coordinate.
During a trial, HTR rate occurred throughout the arena without spatial predictability on the Y-coordinate ( Figure 5 supplemental ; Permutation test, p = 0.92), but with preference for the X-coordinate ( Figure 5 supplemental ; Permutation test, p = 0.002)
Results, Mice occupy allocentric space similarly but head twitch preferentially in proximity to odor ports, paragraph 2; Figure 5 supplemental AHow it will be judged
DOI sessions with HTR times. As in the Methods (Figure 5) and fig5_cleaned.Rmd; nose position at each frame (x flipped for the first cohort, frames above 160 cm/s dropped); each HTR assigned to the frame nearest its time; the arena in bins of 100 pixels (about 2.5 cm), the last bin column and row (x bin 1200, y bin 700) dropped; per mouse and bin, HTRs within trials over within-trial occupancy, in HTR per min, bins the mouse visited in the session filled with zero where it had no within-trial time. Statistic the Pearson correlation of the per-mouse, per-bin rates with bin x and with bin y; null from 10000 permutations of the bin coordinates; two-sided p as the fraction of permuted absolute correlations at or above the observed one (seed 123 in the code, a choice that cannot change the outcome). Reproduced when p < 0.05 for x and p >= 0.05 for y; partially reproduced when only one holds. The sign of the x correlation is reported, positive meaning toward the odor and reward ports.
- fig5e-htr-combined-x
With trial and ITI periods combined, mice head-twitch more often closer to the odor end of the arena, as the X coordinate increases.
and when conditions were combined ( Figure 5E ; Permutation test, p < 0.001 for X-coordinates)
Results, Mice occupy allocentric space similarly but head twitch preferentially in proximity to odor ports, paragraph 2; Figure 5EHow it will be judged
As fig5supp-htr-within-trial-x-not-y with all frames of the DOI session (trial and ITI combined), rows for the bins each mouse occupied, as fig5_cleaned.Rmd does. Reproduced when the x correlation is positive (rate rising toward the odor and reward ports) with p < 0.001; partially reproduced when it is positive with p < 0.05.
- fig5supp-htr-iti-x
During the ITI, mice head-twitch more often toward the end of the arena past the decision line (as X increases), but not specifically next to the reward ports on the Y coordinate.
Similarly, during the ITI, we found that mice HTR more frequently closer to the end of the arena after crossing the decision line (as X-coordinate increases), but not immediately next to the reward ports (on the Y-coordinate)
Results, Mice occupy allocentric space similarly but head twitch preferentially in proximity to odor ports, paragraph 2; Figure 5 supplemental BHow it will be judged
The paper gives no test for the ITI alone and the code runs none; the test of fig5supp-htr-within-trial-x-not-y is applied to ITI frames and ITI HTRs (per-mouse rates over ITI occupancy, the code's htr_normalized_permouse_iti, edge bins dropped), the reading the paper's "Similarly" implies. Reproduced when the x correlation is positive with p < 0.05 and the y test has p >= 0.05; partially reproduced when only the x part holds.
- fig5f-htr-rate-trial-vs-iti
HTR rate does not differ between time within trials and time in the ITI.
We normalized HTR rate based on within trial and ITI duration and found no difference in HTR rate based on whether the mouse was in a trial or ITI ( Figure 5F ; Wilcoxon signed rank, p = 1)
Results, Mice occupy allocentric space similarly but head twitch preferentially in proximity to odor ports, paragraph 2; Figure 5FHow it will be judged
A claim of absence. As in fig5_cleaned.Rmd; per DOI session, HTRs whose time lies within a trial divided by the summed trial durations, and the other HTRs divided by 2400 s minus the summed trial durations, in HTR per min; two-sided paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Reproduced when p >= 0.05, not reproduced when p < 0.05; the median difference is reported.
- fig5supp-htr-no-sex-difference
HTR rate over the 40 min DOI session does not differ between male and female mice.
Additionally, we did not see a sex difference in HTR rate over the 40 m session ( Figure 5 supplemental ; Wilcoxon rank sum, p = 0.31)
Results, Mice occupy allocentric space similarly but head twitch preferentially in proximity to odor ports, paragraph 2; Figure 5 supplemental CHow it will be judged
A claim of absence. Per DOI session the number of HTRs divided by 40 min; a two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test (normal approximation, exact = FALSE in fig5_cleaned.Rmd), female against male. Reproduced when p >= 0.05, not reproduced when p < 0.05; the group medians are reported.
Pipeline
- Paper
- done (1 of 1)
- Claims
- done
- Claims check
- done (ready)
- Attempt
- todo
- Questions
- none
- Verified
- none