Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Articles, Behavioral/Cognitive

Medial Orbitofrontal Neurons Preferentially Signal Cues Predicting Changes in Reward during Unblocking

Nina Lopatina, Michael A. McDannald, Clay V. Styer, Jacob F. Peterson, Brian F. Sadacca, Joseph F. Cheer and Geoffrey Schoenbaum
Journal of Neuroscience 10 August 2016, 36 (32) 8416-8424; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1101-16.2016
Nina Lopatina
1National Institute on Drug Abuse, Intramural Research Program, Baltimore, Maryland 21224,
3University of Maryland School of Medicine, Program in Neuroscience, Baltimore, Maryland 21201,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nina Lopatina
Michael A. McDannald
2Department of Psychology, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts 02467,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Michael A. McDannald
Clay V. Styer
1National Institute on Drug Abuse, Intramural Research Program, Baltimore, Maryland 21224,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jacob F. Peterson
1National Institute on Drug Abuse, Intramural Research Program, Baltimore, Maryland 21224,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brian F. Sadacca
1National Institute on Drug Abuse, Intramural Research Program, Baltimore, Maryland 21224,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joseph F. Cheer
4University of Maryland School of Medicine, Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Joseph F. Cheer
Geoffrey Schoenbaum
1National Institute on Drug Abuse, Intramural Research Program, Baltimore, Maryland 21224,
4University of Maryland School of Medicine, Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, and
5Johns Hopkins University, Department of Neuroscience, Baltimore, Maryland 21205
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Geoffrey Schoenbaum
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

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

    Experimental outline, behavior summary, recording sites, and recorded cells. a, Thirsty rats were initially trained to enter an odor port after a house light lit up, then to go to the reward well below to receive a drop of chocolate milk. There were four trial types in the unblocking session. The first was a reminder of initial training. On the other three trial types, the originally trained odor was briefly presented, followed by one of three novel odors. The reward following the novel odors was unchanged (black; blocked trials), larger in size (blue; upshift trials), or smaller in size (green; downshift trials). In the probe test stage, we assessed learning by presenting the novel odors without a subsequent reward. b, Time in the reward well on the probe test trials. ANOVA for time spent in the reward well with odor (blocked, upshift, downshift), and trial (1–10) as factors found a significant effect of odor (ANOVA, F(2,66) = 18.88, p = 3.27 × 10−7) and trial (ANOVA, F(9,297) = 9.94, p = 2.43 × 10−13). Planned comparisons confirmed that, in the first two trial block, rats spent significantly more time in the reward well following the upshift odor (p = 0.0078) relative to the blocked odor. Rats also spent less time in the reward well following the downshift odor on Trials 3–8 relative to the blocked odor (p = 0.0306, p = 0.0009, and p = 0.0003, respectively). *p < 0.05. ×p < 0.01. +p < 0.001. Error bars indicate SEM. c, Single-unit activity was recorded from the medial orbital cortex with some recordings in or overlapping ventral orbital cortex. Locations are shown at 4.68 and 5.16 mm anterior to bregma. MO, Medial orbital cortex; VO, ventral orbital cortex. d, Theoretical firing pattern for cells that signal value monotonically (left) or are tuned to individual reward sizes (right). e–g, Activity of day 2 cells with a baseline firing rate <10 Hz sorted by when each cell reaches its maximal firing rate over the course of a trial on (e) downshift, (f) blocked, and (g) upshift trials. Cells are sorted independently in the order of earliest maximal firing rate within each trial type; thus, the cell numbers do not correspond between trial types.

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

    Recorded units not restricted to odor-responsive units. a, b, Classification accuracy for all cells with firing <10 Hz for day 1 cells (a) and day 2 cells (b). Dashed red line indicates chance. c, Classification accuracy over a sliding window of 6 trials for day 1 (left) and day 2 (right) cells. Classification accuracy significance above chance is indicated above time bins in a color matching the trial type. *p < 0.05. ×p < 0.01. +p < 0.001. Error bars indicate SEM.

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

    Single-unit and population firing of upshift-responsive neurons. a–c, Raster plots for firing of single units on initial (red), blocked (black), upshift (blue), and downshift (green) trials. First vertical line indicates odor onset (On). Second vertical line indicates novel odor onset (Novel). Third vertical line indicates odor offset (Off). Each tick represents a spike. Average activity across all trials is plotted by odor (bottom) showing the following: (a) selective firing to the upshift odor on day 2, (b) putative predictive firing to the upshift and downshift odors on day 2, (c) putative salience firing to all three novel odors but not the initially trained odor on day 1, and (d) mean neural activity (novel odor epoch, ITI) for the upshift-responsive population (n = 21) is plotted. Line colors as in raster plots. Shaded areas represent SEM. ANOVA with bin (50 ms) and odor as factors found significant effects of bin (F(59,1180) = 6.18, p < 1 × 10−11), odor (F(3,60) = 3.31, p = 0.026), and a bin × odor interaction (F(177,3540) = 1.88, p = 8.12 × 10−11). ANOVA restricted to the novel odor period with odor and time (first 500 ms vs second 500 ms; top right, inset) as factors found a main effect of odor (F(3,60) = 3.20, p = 0.0296). ANOVA restricted to only the three novel odors found no effect of odor (F(2,40) = 0.79, p = 0.46). e, Scatter plot of blocked-cue and baseline-normalized upshift and downshift firing rate for all cells in the upshift-responsive population found a nonsignificant positive correlation between upshift and downshift firing. f, Baseline and initial cue-normalized firing to the upshift cue for the upshift-responsive population on the first 10 trials over both unblocking day (n = 21). Firing was calculated in a 150 ms sliding window for each 50 ms bin moving away from novel odor onset. The firing rate over ITI was then plotted, with dark red bins indicating maximal firing to the upshift cue and blue indicating minimal firing. Heat plot values shown on right of heat plot. g, The significance of the increased firing to the upshift cue was determined by performing a one-tailed t test comparing firing rate to 0, using a significance of p < 0.01 and a sliding window as in f. Black bins represent significant elevations in firing to the upshift cue.

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

    Single-unit and population firing of downshift-responsive neurons. a, b, Raster plots as in Figure 3a–c for day 1 cells showing (a) selective firing to the downshift cue and (b) putative anti-value firing, exhibiting a monotonic firing pattern negatively correlated with reward value. c, Mean neural activity (novel odor epoch, ITI) as in Figure 3d for the downshift-responsive population (n = 20). ANOVA with bin and odor as factors found significant effects of bin (F(59,1121) = 9.44, p < 1 × 10−11), odor (F(3,57) = 6.75, p = 5.637 × 10−4), and the bin × odor interaction (F(177,3363) = 2.49, p < 1 × 10−11). ANOVA restricted to the novel odor period with odor and time (first 500 ms vs second 500 ms; top right, inset) as factors found a main effect of odor (F(3,57) = 6.30, p = 9.2 × 10−4). ANOVA restricted to only the three novel odors found a main effect of odor (F(2,38) = 3.25, p = 0.0498). d, Scatter plot of blocked-cue and baseline-normalized upshift and downshift firing rate for all cells in the downshift-responsive population as in Figure 3e. e, f, Heat plots and p value plots as in Figure 3f, g for all downshift-responsive cells on unblocking days 1 and 2 (n = 20).

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

    Single-unit and population firing of blocked-responsive neurons. a, Raster plots as in Figure 3a–c for firing of single units that are selective for the blocked cue. b, Mean neural activity (novel odor epoch, ITI) as in Figure 3d for the blocked-responsive population (n = 11). ANOVA with bin and odor as factors found significant effects of bin (F(59,590) = 4.49, p < 1 × 10−11), odor (F(3,30) = 8.07, p = 4.36 × 10−4), and the bin × odor interaction (F(177,1770) = 2.53, p < 1 × 10−11). ANOVA restricted to the novel odor period with odor and time (first 500 ms vs second 500 ms, shown in top right, inset) as factors found a main effect of odor (F(3,30) = 6.57, p < 0.01). ANOVA restricted to only the three novel odors found no effect of odor (F(2,20) = 2.24, p = 0.1325). c, Scatter plot of blocked-cue and baseline-normalized upshift and downshift firing rate for all cells in the blocked-responsive population as in Figure 3e. d, e, Heat plots and p value plots as in Figure 3f, g for all blocked-responsive cells on unblocking days 1 and 2 (n = 11).

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

    lOFC and mOFC comparison. a, Venn diagram of lOFC response types. Each circle is proportionate to the number of cells that respond to each respective cue. Overlap between circles indicates cells that respond to multiple cues. Numbers represent the number of cells that respond to each cue or combination of cues. Curved lines indicate results of comparison of unique numbers in each group by χ2. Inset, Population plots show mean neural activity (novel odor epoch, ITI) as in Figure 3d for populations in the lOFC that were as follows: Left, Upshift-responsive (n = 60). Right, Downshift-responsive (n = 56). Top, Blocked-responsive (n = 49). b, Venn diagram of mOFC response types as in a. Mean neural activity (novel odor epoch, ITI) as in Figure 3d for populations in the mOFC, replicated from previous figures, which were as follows: Left, Upshift-responsive (n = 21). Right, Downshift-responsive (n = 20). Top, Blocked-responsive (n = 11).

Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 36 (32)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 36, Issue 32
10 Aug 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience 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.
Medial Orbitofrontal Neurons Preferentially Signal Cues Predicting Changes in Reward during Unblocking
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
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
Medial Orbitofrontal Neurons Preferentially Signal Cues Predicting Changes in Reward during Unblocking
Nina Lopatina, Michael A. McDannald, Clay V. Styer, Jacob F. Peterson, Brian F. Sadacca, Joseph F. Cheer, Geoffrey Schoenbaum
Journal of Neuroscience 10 August 2016, 36 (32) 8416-8424; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1101-16.2016

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Medial Orbitofrontal Neurons Preferentially Signal Cues Predicting Changes in Reward during Unblocking
Nina Lopatina, Michael A. McDannald, Clay V. Styer, Jacob F. Peterson, Brian F. Sadacca, Joseph F. Cheer, Geoffrey Schoenbaum
Journal of Neuroscience 10 August 2016, 36 (32) 8416-8424; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1101-16.2016
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • orbitofrontal
  • Pavlovian
  • rat
  • single unit

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

Articles

  • Choice Behavior Guided by Learned, But Not Innate, Taste Aversion Recruits the Orbitofrontal Cortex
  • Maturation of Spontaneous Firing Properties after Hearing Onset in Rat Auditory Nerve Fibers: Spontaneous Rates, Refractoriness, and Interfiber Correlations
  • Insulin Treatment Prevents Neuroinflammation and Neuronal Injury with Restored Neurobehavioral Function in Models of HIV/AIDS Neurodegeneration
Show more Articles

Behavioral/Cognitive

  • Concurrent- and after-effects of medial temporal lobe stimulation on directed information flow to and from prefrontal and parietal cortices during memory formation
  • The human centromedial amygdala contributes to negative prediction error signaling during appetitive and aversive Pavlovian gustatory learning
  • Perceptual Difficulty Regulates Attentional Gain Modulations in Human Visual Cortex
Show more Behavioral/Cognitive
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • 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
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci 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 JNeurosci.