Skip to main content
. 2022 Mar 9;8(10):eabj5167. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abj5167

Fig. 6. Differential effects of cell type–specific optogenetic inactivation on forelimb movement kinematics.

Fig. 6.

(A) Schematic of closed-loop inactivation paradigm. (B) Difference in movement-aligned activity between control trials and laser inactivation trials for identified corticopontine PT+ neurons. (C) Difference in movement-aligned activity between control trials and laser inactivation trials for identified layer 5 corticostriatal IT+ neurons. (D to I) Behavioral effects of inactivation on movement amplitude and speed (D to G) and direction (H and I) were examined for inactivation of layer 5 IT neurons (D and E) and layer 5 corticopontine PT neurons (F and G). For each: Left: Means ± SEM reach amplitude/speed of unperturbed control trials (black) and perturbed inactivation (color) trials. Right: Mean reach amplitude/speed of unperturbed control (black dots) and inactivation trials (colored dots) for individual sessions. (H) For an example session in Sim1-FLInChR, mouse trajectories were reliably biased in direction on inactivation trials relative to control trials. Traces show mean trajectories with tangent vectors indicating speed (length) and direction of movement (angle). (I) Population data showing x component of movement trajectory as a function of time for inactivation trials (IT, green; PT, blue) compared to control trials (black). The shaded area is SEM. ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, and *P < 0.05. n.s., not significant.