Figure 3.

Tone-evoked activity in A1 is modulated by behavioral choice. A. Heat-map of individual neuronal responses. Each row shows a neuron’s average response across repetitions of the same pure-tone frequency during passive (left), hit (middle) miss (right) trials. Facilitative and suppressive responses are shown as positive (warm colors) and negative (cool colors) values, respectively. The vertical black line shows the tone onset time. Neurons in all three panels were sorted by peak response latency during hit trials. B. Population average response time-courses for both facilitative and suppressive hit trials (red), miss trials (blue), and passive trials (black). Shading shows 2 SEMs. C. Box plots for the distribution of population responses, after collapsing the time-course for each cell into an average value across time after the tone onset. Conditions are color coded as in B. ‘*’ indicate p<0.001, KW-test. The average facilitative ΔF/F response for passive, hit and miss trials were 14.8% ± 0.62%, 24% ± 0.71%, and 10% ± 0.5%, respectively. The average suppressive ΔF/F response for passive, hit and miss trials were −2.9% ± 1.4%, −22.1% ± 1.4%, and −5.4% ± 1.04%, respectively. D. CDFs for attentional gain, measured as the differences in ΔF/F between hit and passive conditions. CDFs were computed by taking the cumulative sum of the histogram of attentional gain values separately across each population of experiments and mice. Left, middle and right panels show the CDFs for the total population of cells, experiments, and mice, respectively. CDFs for facilitative and suppressive responses in black and gray, respectively. The mean attentional gain for facilitative responses was 9.9% ± 0.93%, 9.9% ± 2.0%, and 9.9% ± 3.7%, across cells, experiments, and mice, respectively. The mean attentional gain for suppressive responses was 19.9% ± 2%, 20.7% ± 3.5%, and 23.8% ± 5.0%, across cells, experiments, and mice, respectively. Arrowheads indicate mean values. ‘*’ indicate a significant difference from 0 (bootstrap t-test, p<0.001). The magnitude of attentional gain in suppressive responses across individual cells, experiments, and mice was significantly greater than the attentional gain for enhanced responses (bootstrap t-test, p<0.001). E. Attentional gain for groups of cells according to their BF octave difference. Attentional gain was positive for both groups (ΔTAR≤0.5: 12.8% ± 0.6%; ΔTAR>0.5: 11.4% ± 0.6%, bootstrap t-test, p<0.001) but similar (bootstrap t-test, p=0.11).