Figure 2: Aiv_VTA and VP_VTA convey evaluative information important for vocal learning.

(A) Syllable sequence highlighting premotor and auditory feedback “evaluative” windows associated with syllable B. (B) Low pitch syllable renditions trigger disruptive WN feedback while high pitch renditions “escape” WN. (C) Schematic of premotor optogenetic “interference” experiment. As in Figure 1, pitch-contingent WN is delivered to syllable D. Independently, the preceding syllable C is detected on every rendition and triggers the laser at a brief fixed delay to deliver optogenetic stimulation during the premotor window for 100% of syllable D renditions. (D) Schematic of auditory feedback optogenetic “interference” experiment. The same approach is used as in the premotor jamming experiment, but now the delay for triggering the laser is set to coincide with the auditory feedback window associated with syllable D. (E) Schematic of Aiv_VTA experiments. (F) Change in target syllable pitch across a single day without laser stimulation or WN (baseline (B), black), WN on low pitch variants (No Laser + WN, red), WN with feedback laser (Feedback Laser + WN, purple), and WN with premotor laser (Premotor Laser + WN, orange). (G) Bar graph of percent change in pitch of target syllables following one day in each of the four conditions (No Laser + WN, n=5, p=0.0489, Feedback Laser + WN, n=5, p = 0.2374, Premotor Laser + WN, n=5, p=0.0235, all paired t tests). (H) Schematic VP_VTA experiments. (I) Same as in (F) except for VP_VTA. (J) Same as in (G) except for VP_VTA, (No Laser + WN, n=4, p=0.0308, Feedback Laser + WN, n=4, p=0.4812, Premotor Laser + WN, n =4, p = 0.0077, all paired t tests).