Skip to main content
. 2021 Mar 31;12:1985. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-22195-z

Fig. 8. Tuning for task variables change with prospective reward.

Fig. 8

These data support the idea of mixed selectivity. a The number of tuned neurons for self variables (self position, self direction, and self speed) when splitting data randomly (gray bar) or according to value of pursued prey (purple bar). Splitting by value increases proportion of tuned neurons, indicating that value modulates responding in a systematic way. b The number of significantly tuned neurons for prey variables (prey position, prey direction, and prey speed) when splitting data randomly (gray bar) or according to value of pursued prey (purple bar). The difference of value split was significant (p = 0.0221 for prey speed, and p < 0.001 for other prey variables), but not for random split. For the prey analysis, only single prey trial is included to reduce confounding (i.e., pursuing targets, transition of pursuit-avoidance behavior). c The number of significantly tuned neurons for egocentric (self position, self direction, and self speed) when splitting data randomly (gray bar) or according to value of pursued prey (purple bar). The difference of value split was significant (p < 0.001). We observed a difference in numbers of significantly tuned neurons between split data. This process was repeated for 50 times by bootstrapping. Significance was calculated by two-sided sign-rank test. n.s means it is not significant, and *** indicates p < 0.001.