Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro
eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Research ArticleNew Research, Cognition and Behavior

The Good and Bad Differentially Encoded within the Subthalamic Nucleus in Rats

Emmanuel Breysse, Yann Pelloux and Christelle Baunez
eNeuro 28 September 2015, 2 (5) ENEURO.0014-15.2015; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0014-15.2015
Emmanuel Breysse
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and Aix Marseille Université, Institut de Neurosciences de la Timone Unité Mixte de Recherche 7289, 13385 Marseille, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yann Pelloux
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and Aix Marseille Université, Institut de Neurosciences de la Timone Unité Mixte de Recherche 7289, 13385 Marseille, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christelle Baunez
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and Aix Marseille Université, Institut de Neurosciences de la Timone Unité Mixte de Recherche 7289, 13385 Marseille, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Behavioral task. A, This diagram illustrates the time elapsing during one trial (black arrow). The rats had to press the lever down for 1 s. During this 1 s period, after 400 ms had elapsed, one cue light was switched ON (either left or right) for 100 ms, providing information regarding the future reward (Left light, 4% sucrose or quinine; Right light, 32% sucrose). The rats had to maintain their paw on the lever until the end of the 1 s period (i.e., an extra 500 ms) that was signaled by a tone. The rewards were then delivered after the rats had withdrawn the lever. Reaction Time is the time between the trigger tone and the lever release; Movement Time is the time between the lever release and the detection of the nose of the rat in the magazine; and the time spent in the magazine after reward delivery (i.e., from detection of the nose of the rat until withdrawal) was measured as the consumption time. B, Operant box in which animals were trained and recorded. The box is equipped with two lights, one lever, one buzzer, and one magazine with two cups.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Histological, neuronal, and waveform characterization. A, Estimation of the placement of the 14 electrodes inside the STN. Sessions associated with the red track (inside the STN) were kept in the analysis, while those associated with the orange track (outside of the STN) were discarded. AP = −3.24 to −4.08: anteroposterior levels taken from the atlas of Paxinos and Watson (2005). Scale bar, 1 mm. B, Cresyl violet staining showing an electrode track inside the STN (delimited by the black dashed line). Scale bar, 500 µm. C, Distribution of the 382 STN neurons according to their mean firing rate (Hz). D, Example of different waveforms of some representative neurons recorded in the STN showing one spike (left), biphasic waveforms (middle), and triphasic waveforms (right).

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Behavioral results. A, Taste reactivity measure. Positive responses (tongue protrusions) induced by various concentrations of sucrose [left; 32% sucrose (red), 10% sucrose (dark orange), 4% sucrose (orange)] and negative responses (gapes) induced by two different concentrations of quinine (right; green). *Significant concentration effect (p < 0.05). B, Mean Reaction Time (time to release the lever after the tone onset in milliseconds ±SEM) for 32% sucrose (red bars), 4% sucrose (orange bars), and quinine (green bars) in the standard condition and during the quinine challenge. #Significant challenge effect (p < 0.05). C, Mean Movement Time (time to reach the magazine after the lever release in milliseconds ±SEM) for 32% sucrose (red bars), 4% sucrose (orange bars), and quinine (green bars) in both standard and quinine challenge conditions. *Significant reward effect; #Significant challenge effect (p < 0.05). D, Mean Consumption Time (CT) (time spent in the magazine after reward delivery in milliseconds ±SEM) for 32% sucrose (red bars), 4% sucrose (orange bars), and quinine (green bars) in both standard and quinine challenge conditions. #Significant challenge effect (p < 0.05); ***significant reward effect (p < 0.001); §§§significantly different from 32% sucrose (p < 0.001); €€€significantly different from 4% sucrose (p < 0.001). E, Mean number of errors (premature lever release) after the cue light onset for 32% sucrose (red bars), 4% sucrose (orange bars), and quinine (green bars) in both standard and quinine challenge conditions. #Significant challenge effect (p < 0.05). F, Mean CT (in milliseconds ±SEM) during challenge 2 for 32% sucrose (red bars), 4% sucrose (orange bars), when the reward was delivered (rewarded trials) vs when for 20% of the successful trials the reward was omitted (unrewarded trials). *Significant reward effect (p < 0.05); #significant challenge effect (p < 0.05).

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Responses of the STN neurons to the predictive cue lights (CLs). A, B, Proportions of the neuronal populations [32% sucrose specific (red), 4% sucrose specific (orange; A), quinine specific (green; B) and similar (yellow)] responding in the standard condition (A, n = 229 of 382) and during the quinine challenge (B, n = 235 of 382). C, Example of the firing pattern of one STN neuron classified as 32% specific, showing increased activity to the CL predicting 32% sucrose (left) and no significant response to the CL predicting 4% sucrose (right). D, Example of the firing pattern of another STN neuron classified as quinine specific showing increased activity to both the CL predicting 32% sucrose (left) and quinine (right), but with a higher increased activity to the CL predicting quinine. Rasters are centered on the occurrence of the CL (time = 0) that lasted 100 ms (two bins of 50 ms). The CL is indicated with a black arrow, and the light gray area delimited by the vertical red lines represents the period on which the bins were analyzed [0:500 ms]. The black bins represent the bins significantly different from the baseline ([−400:0 ms]). Top, Raster plot of spike firing on each trial (each row illustrates one trial), with the top row of dots corresponding to the first trial. Bottom, Mean firing rate across all trials, with a bin size of 50 ms. E, F, Average post-stimulus time histograms of the firing rate (expressed as z-score) aligned with the cue light (0 ms) in standard condition (E) and quinine challenge (F) constructed with 50 ms bins for 32% (red) and 4% sucrose or quinine (orange). The lines represent the average PSTHs (mean ± SEM) of the whole population that respond to the CL. *Significant reward effect (p < 0.05). Suc, Sucrose.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Excitation and inhibition at the cue light presentation and lever release. A, Average z-scores (mean ± SEM) of the firing activity for STN neurons responding by an activation (red line) or an inhibition (blue line) to the cue light (time = 0 ms) in standard condition (left) and quinine challenge (right). B, Average z-scores (mean ± SEM) of the firing activity for STN neurons responding by an activation (red line) or an inhibition (blue line) at the lever release (time = 0 ms) in correct trials (left) and incorrect trials (right). The black dotted lines represent the average activity of both activated and inhibited neuronal populations responding to the events. The percentages represent the mean variation of activity after each event for activated (red) and inhibited (blue) neuronal population. The z-scores are represented for the period on which the time bins were analyzed (−400:450 ms).

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Evolution of the neuronal selectivity at the cue light (CL) according to the context (during challenge 1, when quinine replaces 4% sucrose). A, Proportions of the 288 neurons responsive to the CL, showing a stable selectivity (red) or a change of selectivity (variable; blue) during challenge 1. Stable neurons (red) are neurons keeping the same selectivity after the quinine introduction (a 32% sucrose-specific neuron remaining 32% specific when quinine has replaced the 4% sucrose), while variable neurons (blue) are neurons changing their selectivity after the quinine introduction. B, Example of the evolution of the firing pattern of an STN neuron classified as a 32% sucrose-specific neuron in the standard condition, showing increased activity in response to the cue light predicting the 32% sucrose (left) and no change of activity to the CL predicting 4% sucrose (right), which stopped to respond during the quinine challenge to both cue lights. Rasters are centered on the occurrence of the CL (time = 0) that lasted 100 ms (two bins of 50 ms). The CL is indicated with a black arrow, and the light gray area delimited by the vertical red lines represents the period on which the bins were analysed [0:500 ms]. The black bins represent the bins significantly different than the baseline (−400:0 ms). Top, Raster plot of spike firing on each trial (each row illustrates one trial), with the top row of dots corresponding to the first trial. Bottom, Mean firing rate across all trials; bin size is 50 ms.

  • Figure 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7.

    Proportions of neurons responsive to correct vs incorrect premature lever release. A, Average post-stimulus time histograms (PSTHs) of the firing rate (expressed as z-score) aligned with the cue light (0 ms, black dotted line), in standard condition (left) and quinine challenge (right) constructed with 50 ms bins preceding trials with future correct (red line) and incorrect (orange line) lever release. The lines represent the PSTHs (mean ± SEM) that respond to the cue light. *Significant reward effect (p < 0.05). B, Proportions of neurons responding exclusively at lever release for correct trials (“correct exclusive neurons”; turquoise area), at lever release in both correct and incorrect trials but in a different manner (“error-specific neurons”; orange area), and responding exclusively at lever release for incorrect trials (oops neurons; dark blue area) in standard condition (left) and quinine challenge (right). C, Selectivity to reward in oops neurons expressed as proportions in both standard condition (left) and quinine challenge (right) of 32% sucrose-specific neurons (red), 4% sucrose-specific neurons (orange), similar neurons (yellow), and quinine-specific neurons (green). D, Selectivity to reward in exclusive correct neurons expressed as proportion in both standard condition (left) and quinine challenge (right) of 32% sucrose-specific neurons (red), 4% sucrose-specific neurons (orange), similar neurons (yellow), and quinine-specific neurons (green). E, Example of the firing pattern of one STN neuron classified correct exclusive neuron showing increased activity at correct lever release only (left), in a similar manner for both 32% sucrose and quinine, but showing no response at lever release for incorrect trials (right), whatever the reward missed. Rasters are centered on the occurrence of the lever release (LR) (time = 0). The LR is indicated with a black arrow, and the light gray area delimited by the vertical red lines represents the period on which the bins were analyzed [0:500 ms]. The black bins represent the bins that were significantly different from the baseline [−400:0 ms]. Top, Raster plot of spike firing on each trial (each row illustrates one trial), with the top row of dots corresponding to the first trial. Bottom, Mean firing rate across all trials; bin size is 50 ms.

  • Figure 8.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 8.

    Responses of the STN neurons at the magazine entry during challenge 2, when the rewards were omitted in 20% of cases. A, Proportions of the different neuronal categories responding at magazine entry for the unrewarded trials [32% sucrose specific (red), 4% sucrose-specific (orange), and “similar” (yellow)]. B, Example of the firing pattern of one STN neuron classified as 32% sucrose specific at the cue light (CL; left), and its response to 32% sucrose delivery at the magazine entry (ME; middle) and at the ME when 32% sucrose was omitted (right). Rasters are centered on the occurrence of the CL (time = 0) that lasted 100 ms (2 bins of 50 ms; left) and the ME (time = 0; middle and right). The CL and the ME are indicated with a black arrow, and the light gray area delimited by the vertical red lines represents the period on which the bins were analyzed (0:500 ms). The black bins represent the bins significantly different of the baseline [−400:0 ms]. Top, Raster plot of spike firing on each trial (each row illustrates one trial), with the top row of dots corresponding to the first trial. Bottom, Mean firing rate across all trials; bin size is 50 ms. C, Proportions of activated (bright green area), inhibited (violet area), and mixed (activation and inhibition; white area) neurons responding to magazine entry for the unrewarded trials.

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 2 (5)
eNeuro
Vol. 2, Issue 5
September/October 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Good and Bad Differentially Encoded within the Subthalamic Nucleus in Rats
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
The Good and Bad Differentially Encoded within the Subthalamic Nucleus in Rats
Emmanuel Breysse, Yann Pelloux, Christelle Baunez
eNeuro 28 September 2015, 2 (5) ENEURO.0014-15.2015; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0014-15.2015

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
The Good and Bad Differentially Encoded within the Subthalamic Nucleus in Rats
Emmanuel Breysse, Yann Pelloux, Christelle Baunez
eNeuro 28 September 2015, 2 (5) ENEURO.0014-15.2015; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0014-15.2015
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Material and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • basal ganglia
  • in vivo electrophysiology
  • motivation
  • quinine
  • reward
  • sucrose

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

New Research

  • A Very Fast Time Scale of Human Motor Adaptation: Within Movement Adjustments of Internal Representations during Reaching
  • TrkB Signaling Influences Gene Expression in Cortistatin-Expressing Interneurons
  • Optogenetic Activation of β-Endorphin Terminals in the Medial Preoptic Nucleus Regulates Female Sexual Receptivity
Show more New Research

Cognition and Behavior

  • A Very Fast Time Scale of Human Motor Adaptation: Within Movement Adjustments of Internal Representations during Reaching
  • TrkB Signaling Influences Gene Expression in Cortistatin-Expressing Interneurons
  • Optogenetic Activation of β-Endorphin Terminals in the Medial Preoptic Nucleus Regulates Female Sexual Receptivity
Show more Cognition and Behavior

Subjects

  • Cognition and Behavior
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2026 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.