1 | E | rt-PP, the preference time spent in the laser-paired chamber (in seconds) | | 2-way RM ANOVA | | Bonferroni | |
D1-SNr/ChR2 10 mice, D1 | Virus F(2,24) = 20.77 | p < 0.0001 | ChR2, pretest vs laser test (day 1), ****p < 0.0001 |
ChR2, pretest vs laser test (day 2), ****p < 0.0001 |
ChR2, pretest vs laser test (day 3), ****p < 0.0001 |
SNr/ArchT 8 mice, D1 | Session F(3,72) = 2.733 | p < 0.05 | ChR2 vs EYFP, laser test (day 1), ****p < 0.0001 |
ChR2 vs ArchT, laser test (day 1), ****p < 0.0001 |
ChR2 vs EYFP, laser test (day 2), ****p < 0.0001 |
SNr/EYFP 9 mice | Virus × session F(6,72) = 10.53 | p < 0.0001 | ChR2 vs ArchT, laser test (day 2), ***p < 0.001 |
ChR2 vs EYFP, laser test (day 3), ****p < 0.0001 |
ChR2 vs ArchT, laser test (day 3), ****p < 0.0001 |
2 | B | Two-choice optogenetic stimulation, number of responses (days 1–4) | D1-SNr/ChR2 10 mice | 3-way RM ANOVA | | Bonferroni | |
D1-SNr/ArchT 8 mice | Virus F(2,24) = 1.456 | p = 0.253 | ChR2, S+ vs S–, ***p < 0.001 (day 3) |
D1-SNr/EYFP 9 mice | Panel F(1,24) = 10.050 | p < 0.001 | |
| Session F(3,72) = 0.372 | p = 0.773 | ChR2, S+ vs S–, ***p < 0.001 (day 4) |
| Virus × panel F(2,24) = 6.964 | p < 0.001 | ChR2 vs EYFP, S+, **p < 0.01 (day 3) |
| Virus × session F(6,72) = 1.413 | p = 0.222 | ChR2 vs EYFP, S+, **p < 0.01 (day 4) |
| Panel × session F(3,72) = 3.852 | p < 0.05 | ChR2 vs ArchT, S+, *p < 0.05 (day 3) |
| | Virus × panel × session F(6,72) = 3.164 | p < 0.01 | ChR2 vs ArchT, S+, *p < 0.05 (day 4) |
| C | Two-choice optogenetic stimulation, response latency (in seconds; days 1–4) | | 3-way RM ANOVA | | N/A | N/A |
Virus F(2,24) = 0.407 | p = 0.670 |
Panel F(1,24) = 0.025 | p = 0.876 |
Session F(3,72) = 1.534 | p = 0.213 |
| Virus × panel F(2,24) = 0.438 | p = 0.650 |
| Virus × session F(6,72) = 0.253 | p = 0.957 |
| Panel × session F(3,72) = 0.307 | p = 0.820 |
| Virus × panel × session F(6,72) = 0.889 | p = 0.507 |
| E | Two-choice optogenetic stimulation paired with a liquid reinforcer, number of responses (days 1–14) | | 3-way RM ANOVA | | Bonferroni | ChR2, S+ vs S–, **p < 0.01 (day 2) |
ChR2, S+ vs S–, ****p < 0.0001 (day 3) |
ChR2, S+ vs S–, ****p < 0.0001 (day 4) |
ChR2, S+ vs S–, ****p < 0.0001 (day 5) |
ChR2, S+ vs S–, **p < 0.01 (day 6) |
ChR2, S+ vs S–, ***p < 0.001 (day 7) |
ChR2, S+ vs S–, **p < 0.01 (day 8) |
ChR2, S+ vs S–, **p < 0.01 (day 9) |
ChR2, S+ vs S–, ****p < 0.0001 (day 10) |
ChR2, S+ vs S–, **p < 0.01 (day 11) |
ChR2, S+ vs S–, ***p < 0.001 (day 12) |
ChR2, S+ vs S–, **p < 0.01 (day 13) |
ChR2, S+ vs S–, ****p < 0.0001 (day 14) |
ChR2 vs EYFP, S+, ***p < 0.001 (day 3) |
ChR2 vs EYFP, S+, ***p < 0.001 (day 4) |
ChR2 vs EYFP, S+, ***p < 0.001 (day 5) |
ChR2 vs EYFP, S+, **p < 0.01 (day 6) |
ChR2 vs EYFP, S+, *p < 0.05 (day 7) |
ChR2 vs EYFP, S+, *p < 0.05 (day 8) |
ChR2 vs EYFP, S+, **p < 0.01 (day 9) |
ChR2 vs EYFP, S+, **p < 0.01 (day 10) |
ChR2 vs EYFP, S+, *p < 0.05 (day 11) |
ChR2 vs EYFP, S+, *p < 0.05 (day 12) |
ChR2 vs EYFP, S+, *p < 0.05 (day 13) |
ChR2 vs EYFP, S+, **p < 0.01 (day 14) |
ChR2 vs ArchT, S+, *p < 0.05 (day 1) |
ChR2 vs ArchT, S+, ***p < 0.001 (day 2) |
ChR2 vs ArchT, S+, ****p < 0.0001 (day 3) |
ChR2 vs ArchT, S+, ****p < 0.0001 (day 4) |
ChR2 vs ArchT, S+, ****p < 0.0001 (day 5) |
ChR2 vs ArchT, S+, **p < 0.01 (day 6) |
ChR2 vs ArchT, S+, ***p < 0.001 (day 7) |
Virus F(2,24) = 11.680 | p < 0.0001 | ChR2 vs ArchT, S+, **p < 0.01 (day 8) |
Panel F(1,24) = 10.345 | p < 0.01 | ChR2 vs ArchT, S+, **p < 0.01 (day 9) |
Session F(13,312) = 10.319 | p < 0.0001 | ChR2 vs ArchT, S+, ****p < 0.0001 (day 10) |
Virus × panel F(2,24) = 37.016 | p < 0.0001 | ChR2 vs ArchT, S+, **p < 0.01 (day 11) |
Virus × session F(26,312) = 1.849 | p < 0.01 | ChR2 vs ArchT, S+, **p < 0.01 (day 12) |
Panel × session F(13,312) = 1.590 | p = 0.087 | ChR2 vs ArchT, S+, **p < 0.01 (day 13) |
Virus × panel × session F(26,312) = 3.365 | p < 0.0001 | ChR2 vs ArchT, S+, ***p < 0.001 (day 14) |
| F | Two-choice optogenetic stimulation paired with a liquid reinforcer, response latency (in seconds; days 1–14) | | 3-way RM ANOVA | | N/A | ChR2 vs EYFP, *p < 0.05 |
Virus F(2,24) = 7.654 | p < 0.01 |
Panel F(1,24) = 0.590 | p = 0.450 |
Session F(13,312) = 0.835 | p = 0.622 |
Virus × panel F(2,24) = 0.104 | p = 0.902 | ChR2 vs ArchT, **p < 0.01 |
Virus × session F(26,312) = 1.064 | p = 0.383 |
Panel × session F(13,312) = 1.155 | p = 0.312 |
Virus × panel × session F(26,312) =1.147 | p = 0.286 |
| G | Two-choice optogenetic stimulation paired with a liquid reinforcer, reward correction latency (in seconds; days 1–14) | | 3-way RM ANOVA | | Bonferroni | ChR2, S+ vs S-, *p < 0.05 (day 4) |
Virus F(2,24) = 2.629 | p = 0.093 | ChR2, S+ vs S-, **p < 0.01 (day 9) |
Panel F(1,24) = 6.248 | p < 0.05 | ChR2, S+ vs S-, *p < 0.05 (day 11) |
Session F(13,312) = 1.039 | p = 0.413 | ChR2, S+ vs S-, ***p < 0.001 (day 12) |
Virus × panel F(2,24) = 8.473 | p < 0.01 | ChR2, S+ vs S-, *p < 0.05 (day 13) |
Virus × session F(26,312) = 0.772 | p = 0.782 | |
Panel × session F(13,312) = 0.729 | p = 0.735 | |
Virus × panel × session F(26,312) = 1.623 | p < 0.05 | |