Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Experimental overview. a, Weight-lifting task apparatus. The pulley system is depicted by the black box on the left, outside the arena. The rope is shown in blue extending into the arena over the rubber grip pad (vertical lines). The 20% sucrose reward is delivered to the orange cap separated from the rope by the black barrier. b, The weight-lifting pulley schematic. The rope is shown in blue with one end attached to a 45 g weight with two magnets and the other end extending into the arena through the conduit. The hash mark shapes indicate Styrofoam inserts to prevent the weight from swinging while pulled. The magnetic sensors are shown in red. c, d, Histologic reconstructions illustrating electrode tip locations for the ACC (c) and AI (d). Black dots were on-target placements while off-target placements are red. Off-target electrodes were not used for LFP analyses. a and b were adapted from Porter and Hillman (2019); c and d were adapted from Paxinos and Watson (2007).
- Figure 2.
Progressive weight task behavior. a, Histogram of quit weight occurrence. “225 g -” indicates the impossible phase where no rewards could be earned; see Materials and Methods. b, The time it took rats to pull the weights up 30 cm from the base, sufficient to trigger sucrose reward. Heavier weights took longer to lift. c, The attempt-to-reward ratio for each weight showing the average number of attempts rats made before completing a successful attempt. Dotted line represents a ratio of 1.0 where every attempt would be successful. Heavier weights took more pull attempts before a reward was successfully triggered. d, Average number of attempts that rats made on each weight. Rats tended to make more attempts as weights got heavier; however, on heavier weights some rats made very few attempts before quitting.
- Figure 3.
Behavioral comparisons between paradigms. In the progressive-weight task, 45 g of weight was added to the rope after every 10 successful pulls. In the fixed-weight task, a 180 g rope weight was accessible for up to 1 h. a–c, In the fixed-weight paradigm, rats made significantly more attempts (a), earned more rewards (b), and performed for longer (c), compared with their performance in the progressive-weight paradigm.
- Figure 4.
Changes in ACC LFP rhythms with increasing effort. a, Multitaper power spectrum of ACC LFP across the six different weights. Shaded error bars represent ± 1 SEM. b–e, Normalized power across the four rhythms of interest (delta, theta, beta, and gamma, respectively). Box plots show first, second (median; middle line), and third quartiles. Whiskers are 1.5 times the interquartile range. All power calculations were normalized using the 2 min prebaseline period (see Materials and Methods).
- Figure 5.
Changes in AI LFP rhythms with increasing effort. a, Multitaper power spectrum of AI LFP across the six different weights. Shaded error bars represent ± 1 SEM. b–e, Normalized power across the four rhythms of interest (delta, theta, beta, and gamma, respectively). Box plots show first, second (median; middle line), and third quartiles. Whiskers are 1.5 times the interquartile range. All power calculations were normalized using the 2 min prebaseline period.
- Figure 6.
Changes in ACC LFP rhythms across performance states. a, Average ACC spectrograms for the three performance states showing mean normalized power in the 2 s before the attempt. b–f, The 0 g weight (blue). The achievement weight (orange; b–f) is the last complete (10 successful pulls) weight, while the quit weight (red; b–f) is the weight the rats quit on. b, Multitaper power spectrum of ACC LFP across the three performance states. Shaded error bars are ±1 SEM. c–f, Normalized power across the four rhythms of interest (delta, theta, beta, and gamma, respectively). Box plots show first, second (median; middle line), and third quartiles. Whiskers are 1.5 times the interquartile range. All power calculations were normalized using the prebaseline period.
- Figure 7.
Changes in AI LFP rhythms across performance states. All power in normalized based on the prebaseline period. a, Average AI spectrograms for the three performance states showing the mean normalized power in the 2 s before the attempt. b–f, The 0 g weight (blue). The achievement weight (orange; b–f) is the last complete (10 successful pulls) weight, while the quit weight (red; b–f) is the weight the rats quit on. b, Multitaper power spectrum of AI LFPs across the three motivational states. Shaded error bars are ± 1 SEM. c–f, Normalized power across the four rhythms of interest (delta, theta, beta, and gamma, respectively). Box plots show first, second (median; middle line), and third quartiles. Whiskers are 1.5 times the interquartile range.
- Figure 8.
ACC–AI coherency measures. a–d, Coherency changes across performance states in the delta (a), theta (b), beta (c), and gamma (d) rhythms. Box plots show first, second (median; middle line), and third quartiles. Whiskers are 1.5 times the interquartile range.
In this issue
