Short-Term Auditory Priming in Freely-Moving Mice — TEI-tagged view

Shir SivronipersName, Hadas E. SloinpersName, Eran StarkpersName (2023date). “Short-Term Auditory Priming in Freely-Moving Mice.” iSciencetitle·j, HaifaplaceName.

Object of study — Whether short-term primingterm·prm can be measured behaviourally in freely-moving mice using an auditory task.

Research question — Can an auditory discrimination task reveal short-term primingterm·prm in mice, and does it fit a formal definition of primingterm·prm?

Contribution — Demonstrates short-term auditory primingterm·prm in freely-moving mice and briefly presents the meta-disciplinary primingterm·prm definition (associationterm·prm, secondarinessterm·prm, modulationterm·prm) used to guide this project's tagging.

Full text — tagged

The reference list is not part of the text we hold for this paper. Our copy was extracted from the publisher's page and the bibliography did not survive that extraction, so the article below ends before its references. Nothing has been removed by us.

Short-term auditory primingterm·prm in freely-moving mice Shir SivronipersName,1,2,3 Hadas E. SloinpersName,1,4 and Eran Stark1,4,5,6,* SUMMARY Primingterm·prm, a change in the mental processing of a stimulus as a result of prior encounter with a related stimulus, has been observed repeatedly and studied extensively in humans. Yet currently, there is no behavioral model of short-term primingterm·prm in lab animals, precluding research on the neurobiological basis of primingterm·prm. Here, we describe an auditory discrimination paradigm for studying response primingterm·prm in freely moving mice. We find a primingterm·prm effect in success rateterm in all mice tested on the task. In contrast, we do not find a primingterm·prm effect in response times. Compared to non-primed discrimination trials, the addition of incongruent prime stimuli reduces success rateterm more than congruent prime stimuli, suggesting a cognitive mechanism based on differential interferenceterm. The results establish the short-term primingterm·prm phenomenon in rodents, and the paradigm opens the door to studying the cellular-network basis of primingterm·prm.

INTRODUCTION We are all familiar with the feeling that related but irrelevant experiences unintentionally influence our decisions. The way products, ideas, and behaviors are promoted or presented affects our tendencies or desires.1–3 For example, if you own a restaurant and have ordered too much French wine, an efficient approach for selling that specific wine may involve playing French music in the background.4 The mental process behind the effect is called ‘‘primingterm·prm’’.1,2,5 Primingterm·prm has been studied in many fields including political science,6 cognitive science,7–10 economics,2,11,12 psychophysiology,13 developmental psychology,14–16 psycholinguistics,17,18 law,19 education,20,21 philosophy of the mind,22,23 and business.24 When the effect is prolonged, primingterm·prm relies on long-term memory,25 whereas if the effect is short-lived (e.g., seconds), primingterm·prm relies on short-term memory.26 Here, we focus on short-term primingterm·prm.

Formally, primingterm·prm is defined as a change in the mental processing of a stimulus as a result of prior encounter with a related stimulus.27,28 In the restaurant example, the type of music played would be the ‘‘prime’’ experience, and the type of wine selected would be the ‘‘target’’. Multiple paradigms have been developed for investigating short-term primingterm·prm.28–31 A distinction is made when the prime is processed consciously, i.e., the subject is aware of the prime stimulus, as opposed to unconscious processing.28,32–34 One specific paradigm is ‘‘response primingterm·prm’’,35,36 in which the prime and target stimuli are presented in quick succession and are coupled with identical or alternative responses. Response primingterm·prm studies typically employ two alternative forced choice (2AFC) tasks for quantifying the influence of the prime on performance. Even when the subject is told that the prime is irrelevant for the performance of the task, the prime influences the outcome28 (Figure 1A). For example, the word ‘‘chair’’ (here, the target stimulus) is classified as ‘‘artificial’’ more rapidly when following the word ‘‘table’’ (the congruent prime stimulus; Figure 1A, left), as opposed to following the word ‘‘sky’’ (the incongruent prime stimulus; Figure 1A, right). The primingterm·prm effect is quantified by a performance difference between congruent prime trialsterm (CPTs) and incongruent prime trialsterm (IPTs). Differences are typically evident in response times27,32,37 and may also be evident in success ratesterm.36,38 Almost all research on primingterm·prm has been conducted on human subjects. With human subjects, verbal explanations are possible, but not with animals. An extensive literature review revealed less than a dozen studies related to short-term primingterm·prm in animals: birds,39–43 rats,44,45 lemurs,46 and monkeys.47,48 To date, there are no studies of primingterm·prm involving cellular-level electrophysiology in humans or animals. Consequently, existing models of primingterm·prm are phenomenological, including ‘‘global neuronal workspace’’49 and "accumulator’’50 models. There are no physiological mechanistic models for primingterm·prm.28,51 For instance, primingterm·prm may consist of a combination of behavioral repetition suppression and top-down influence of attentional amplification of task-congruent processing pathways.52 However, alternative mechanistic models are difficult to contest without access to cellular-network activity.

Here, we developed an auditory response primingterm·prm paradigm for freely moving mice (Figure 1B). In two preliminary stages, we train the subjects to discriminate between the frequencies of long pure tones and to ignore short pure tones. We then couple short and long tones in the same trial. In contrast to studies of short-term primingterm·prm in humans, we do not find any difference in response times. However, we find a consistent difference between success ratesterm during CPTs and IPTs in all subjects. The results show that primingterm·prm occurs in mice, suggesting that 1Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 6997801, Israel 2Department of Mathematics, Afeka-Tel Aviv College of Engineering, Tel-Aviv 6910717, Israel 3Department of Mathematics, The Open University of Israel, Ra’anana 4353701, Israel 4Sagol School of Neuroscience, Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 6997801, Israel 5Sagol Department of Neurobiology, Haifa University, Haifa 3103301, Israel 6Lead contact *Correspondence: eranstark@sci.haifa.ac.il https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023date.107847 iScience 26, 107847, October 20, 2023date ª 2023date The Author(s). This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

OPEN ACCESS iScience Article Figure 1. Paradigms for studying short-term primingterm·prm in humans and in mice (A) Standard paradigm for testing short-term response primingterm·prm in humans. Left, A typical timeline for a congruent prime trialterm (CPT). ‘‘Table’’ and ‘‘chair’’ are both pieces of furniture and belong to the same semantic content group. Right, A typical timeline for an incongruent prime trialterm (IPT). In the context of the experiment, the word ‘‘sky’’ (the prime stimulus) and the word ‘‘chair’’ (the target stimulus) do not belong to the same semantic content group. A ‘‘sky’’ target stimulus implies a ‘‘left’’ choice, and ‘‘chair’’ implies ‘‘right’’. When the prime and target stimuli are congruent, human response times are typically shorter. (B) Proposed paradigm for testing short-term primingterm·prm in mice. Left, A typical timeline for a CPT. The prime stimulus (short pure tone) and the target stimulus (long pure tone) belong to the same frequency group, since both tones have the same frequency, 10 kHz. Right, A typical timeline for an IPT. In the context of the experiment, 5 kHz and 10 kHz pure tones do not belong to the same content group. A target stimulus of ‘‘5 kHz’’ implies a ‘‘left’’ choice, and ‘‘10 kHz’’ implies a ‘‘right’’ choice. When the prime and target stimuli are congruent, mouse success ratesterm are typically higher. (C) In humans, the typical primingterm·prm effect is in response time. In contrast, we find that in mice the primingterm·prm effect is in success ratesterm, and not in response times.

mice enjoy the same benefit as humans from the automatic activation of a first stimulus when performing a task on the second. Finally, we find that compared to same-session discrimination trials (DTs), success ratesterm are reduced during IPTs more than during CPTs, suggesting that differential interferencesterm underlie short-term primingterm·prm in mice. The presented model system opens the door to studying the molecular, genetic, and cellular-network mechanisms at the basis of primingterm·prm.

RESULTS There are three features that set the primingterm·prm phenomenon apart from other phenomena. The first feature is an associationterm·prm between the first (prime) stimulus and the second (target) stimulus, or the response. The second feature is the irrelevance of the prime stimulus to the response (the choice). And the third feature is the conflict between the prime-target (or the prime-response) associationterm·prm, and the irrelevance of the prime stimulus to the response.

In the mouse primingterm·prm paradigm, all behavioral training and testing sessions were carried out in the same apparatus (Figure 2A). Sessions were organized in three stages, each consisting of one or more distinct tasks (Figure 2B). The stimulus-response contingency was the same during all stages (Figure 2C). The first stage included discrimination sessions, composed of DTs (Figures 2D and 2E, top; Video S1). The DTs were designed to teach the animal an associationterm·prm between the frequency of the target stimulus and the response. Once the frequency-port associationterm·prm is learned, it is automatically applied to short tones as well, rendering the (short) prime stimuli relevant. Therefore, the second stage consisted of validation sessions, in which DTs were supplemented by validation trials (VTs; Figures 2D and 2E, middle; Video S2). In VTs, the animal had to learn to ignore short tones, while continuing to respond to long tone stimuli. Primingterm·prm can be assessed only after the animal has learned the associationterm·prm between the long tones and the response, as well as the irrelevance of the short tones to the response. Thus, the third stage consisted of primingterm·prm sessions, in which the DTs were supplemented by primingterm·prm trials (PTs; Figures 2D and 2E, bottom; Video S3). To move from the first to the second stage, or from the second to the third stage, the animals had to fulfill a performance criterion. The third stage did not include training phases and only involved testing on the primingterm·prm task.

Mice learn to discriminate lower pure tones from higher pure tones The first stage of the learning process contained only discrimination sessions.53 In each DT, one of two pure tones was presented for 300 ms: a low target tone (5 kHz) or a high target tone (10 kHz). Both tones are in the audible range for mice54 and for humans. During the training period, iScience 26, 107847, October 20, 2023date iScience Article OPEN ACCESS Figure 2. Apparatus and training procedure for testing short-term auditory primingterm·prm in mice (A) The behavioral apparatus. One wall of the box contains all sensors and actuators, including a speaker and three illuminated water ports equipped with infrared LEDs for detecting nose pokes. (B) Mice are trained in two preliminary stages before being tested on the primingterm·prm task. Stage 1 includes a simple discrimination task, in which the stimulusresponse (tone-side) contingency is learned using long (300 ms) pure tones. Stage 2 includes a validation task, in which the mice learn that short (15 ms) pure tones are irrelevant for choosing a correct response. Stage 3 includes the primingterm·prm task. (C) Stimulus-response contingency. In all tasks, a low (5 kHz) long pure tone requires a left nose poke, and a high (10 kHz) long pure tone requires a right nose poke. (D) Timelines for the three types of trials. Top, Discrimination trials (DTs). Middle, Validation trials (VTs). Bottom, Primingterm·prm trials (PTs). ITI, inter-trial interval. (E) Example sequence of trials during discrimination, validation, and primingterm·prm sessions. Every rectangle represents a single trial. See also Video S1 (an excerpt from a discrimination session), Video S2 (a validation session), and Video S3 (a primingterm·prm session).

the mouse had to associate the low-frequency tone with the left port, and the high-frequency tone with the right port. An example post-learning discrimination session can be found in Figure 3A. In the example session there were 154 trials with 5 kHz tones and 157 trials with 10 kHz tones. The mouse ignored two trials toward the end of the session and was incorrect in 29 other trials, yielding an overall success rateterm of 280/311 (90%). Mice started the first discrimination sessions with success ratesterm around 0.5. During training, the number of trials per session (Figure 3B) and the success ratesterm (Figure 3C) gradually increased. All mice tested on the paradigm learned the discrimination task, achieving the criterion of at least four consecutive sessions with above-chance performance (p < 0.05, binomial test) and success rateterm above 85%. For the example subject, the transition from learning to post-learning is marked by a dashed vertical line in Figure 3D. The number of training sessions before learning was 15, 13, and 24, for subjects mB278, mA203, and mF68, respectively. After the learning period ended, additional discrimination sessions were conducted to measure and consolidate performance. Similar learning curves were observed in all three subjects (Figure 3E). During the post-learning sessions, all subjects exhibited consistently high performance (Figure 3F), with a median [interquartile-interval, IQR] postlearning success rateterm of 88% [79% 91%] (n = 84 sessions). The number of trials was self-paced by the mice, with a median [IQR] of 239 [171 322] trials per post-learning discrimination session. Subject-specific success ratesterm were 91% [88% 92%] (n = 12 sessions, mB278); 87% [80% iScience 26, 107847, October 20, 2023date OPEN ACCESS iScience Article Figure 3. Mice learn to discriminate lower pure tones from higher pure tones (A) An example discrimination session performed by subject mB278. Left, Every dot represents a single DT. Dot color represents the target stimulus in the trial, i.e., the frequency of the 300 ms tone, which can be 5 kHz (light blue) or 10 kHz (dark blue). The vertical location represents the response (mouse choice) during the trial, which can be the left port (bottom), ignoring the tone (middle), or the right port (top). A session with perfect performance would yield a graph with all dark blue dots on top, all light blue dots at the bottom, and no dots in the middle. The example session consisted of 311 trials with a 90% success rateterm. The mouse ignored one low and one high tone, both toward the end of the session. Right, Fraction histograms for left correct trials (bottom), right correct trials (top), and ignored trials (middle). Error bars represent SEM. (B) The number of trials in every discrimination session carried out by one subject (mB278). Enlarged empty circle indicates the example session shown in A. (C) Success rateterm, defined as the fraction of correct DTs, for the same sessions as in B. Error bands represent SEM. (D) The p valuesterm·stat of deviation from chance for subject mB278 sessions (Binomial test comparing to chance level, 0.5). Successful sessions (p < 0.05 and success rateterm above 0.85) appear as enlarged empty circles. In B–E, vertical dashed lines mark the first of four consecutive successful sessions, considered the point at which the mouse has learned the discrimination task. The same session is the first session of the testing period (F). (E) Learning curves for the three mice trained on the discrimination task. Thin lines show performance (fraction correct) of the individual mice (linear time warping) during the training period and for the beginning of the testing period. Thick line and patch show mean and SEM over mice. All mice start around chance level and perform consistently above 85% after training. (F) Post-learning performance of subjects mB278, mA203, and mF68 on the discrimination task. Every boxplot shows median and interquartile range (IQR) for one subject. Whiskers extend for 1.5 times the IQR in every direction, and a plus sign indicates an outlier. All mice learned the task, with an overall success rateterm of 88% [79% 91%] (median [IQR], n = 84 sessions).

91%] (n = 42, mA203); and 86% [76% 90%] (n = 30, mF68). Thus, all the mice achieved stable and high performance of discriminating between lower (5 kHz) and higher (10 kHz) pure tones.

Mice learn to ignore short tones while discriminating long tones After learning the discrimination task and exhibiting consistently high performance, the mice were trained to ignore short (15 ms) pure tones. A crucial element of every testable primingterm·prm paradigm is that the subject will understand that the task should be performed on the target and not iScience 26, 107847, October 20, 2023date iScience Article OPEN ACCESS Figure 4. Mice learn to ignore short tones while discriminating long tones (A) All VTs in an example validation session of subject mB278. Left, Every dot represents a single VT. Dot color represents the frequency of the short pure tone (15 ms), which can be 5 kHz (light green) or 10 kHz (dark green). The vertical location of the dot represents the response (left port, ignorance, or right port). A validation session with perfect performance during VTs should yield a graph with all dots in the middle. Right, Fraction histograms for the number of the iScience 26, 107847, October 20, 2023date OPEN ACCESS Figure 4. Continued iScience Article trials corresponding to every response. Error bars represent SEM. The subject ignored short tones during 71/82 (87%) of the VTs. Of the not-ignored VTs, the mouse made a ‘‘correct’’ choice in all three low short tones and in 7/8 of the high short tones. (B) Dependence of the ‘‘irrelevance score’’ on the fraction of ignored VTs and on success during not-ignored VTs. The score is defined as irrelevance = 1–2 fni|0.5- rni|, where fni is the fraction of not-ignored trials, and rni is the success rateterm during the not-ignored trials. When performance is very close to discrimination, scores fall in blue-hued parts of the graph, indicating that the subject has not learned the validation task. When the desired performance on the validation task is achieved, scores fall in the red-hued parts. (C) The number of VTs in every validation session carried out by one subject (mB278). Enlarged empty circle indicates the example session shown in A. (D) The fraction of ignored VTs, for the same sessions as in C. Here and in EFHI, error bands represent SEM. (E) The fraction of ‘‘correct’’ trials out of the not-ignored VTs. (F) Irrelevance scores. (G) The p valuesterm·stat of irrelevance score for every validation session of subject mB278 (Monte Carlo test). Sessions with successful validation (p < 0.05 and irrelevance score above 0.85) appear as enlarged empty circles. In C–I, vertical dashed lines mark the first of four consecutive successful sessions, considered the point at which the mouse has learned the validation task. (H) Learning curves for the four mice trained on the validation task showing the fraction ignored. All conventions are the same as in Figure 3E. At the beginning of the training period, the mice ignore only some of the short tone stimuli. (I) Learning curves showing the irrelevance score. After training, the irrelevance scores are consistently above 0.85. (J) Fraction of ignored VTs, pooled over all testing sessions for subjects mA411, mB278, mA203, and mF68. Here and in KL, boxplot conventions are the same as in Figure 3F. (K) ‘‘Success ratesterm’’ for the not-ignored VTs, pooled over all testing sessions for every mouse. (L) Post-learning irrelevance scores, pooled over all testing sessions for every mouse. All mice learned the validation task, with an overall irrelevance score of 0.94 [0.86 0.99] (median [IQR], n = 66 sessions).

on the prime. With human subjects, verbal explanations are useful, but not with mice. To establish that short tones do not predict a correct choice of side port (right or left) and are therefore irrelevant to the response, VTs were used. In each VT, one of two pure tones was presented for 15 ms: a low short pure tone (5 kHz), or a high short pure tone (10 kHz). To suppress the tendency of mice pretrained on the stimulus-response contingency during DTs to choose a side port, a middle port reward was given if the mouse poked the middle port at least 1,000 ms after the short tone ended (Figure 2D, middle). During training, the mouse had to learn that there is no associationterm·prm between short tones and a choice of a side port. In practice, the subject had to respond to short tones at chance level, or to ignore the short tones and choose a side port only after long tones. In addition to VTs, every validation session contained DTs, identical to the DTs employed during discrimination sessions.

All the VTs of an example post-learning validation session are shown in Figure 4A. The example session included a total of 353 trials, of which 82 were VTs and the rest were DTs. Of the VTs, 38 trials included low short tones and 44 trials included high short tones. The mouse correctly ignored 35/38 (92%) of the low tones and 36/44 (82%) of the high tones. Thus, 71/82 (87%) of the VTs were ignored. During notignored trials, the ‘‘success rateterm’’ was 10/11 (91%). To take into account the fraction of the ignored trials as well as the responses during not-ignored trials, we defined an ‘‘irrelevance score’’ (Figure 4B). The irrelevance score is close to 1 when the short tones are ignored (Figure 4B, red) and close to 0 when the mouse fails to ignore the short tones (Figure 4B, blue). For the example validation session, the irrelevance score was 0.89.

The example subject (mB278) started training on the validation task after having learned the discrimination task to criterion. Thus, during the initial validation sessions the subject did not ignore the short tone stimuli (Figure 4D). However, during training, the fraction of ignored VTs gradually increased and stabilized (Figure 4D). The subject performed correctly during not-ignored VTs (Figure 4E), and the irrelevance score exhibited increases and decreases during training on the validation task (Figure 4F). Learning was defined as crossing a criterion of four consecutive sessions with above-chance irrelevance score (p < 0.05, Monte Carlo test) maintained above 0.85 (Figure 4G). For the example subject, the transition from learning to post-learning is marked by a vertical dashed line (Figures 4C–4G).

Similar learning curves were observed in all four subjects (Figures 4H and 4I). There were occasional high-performance sessions during training, and the learning process was not perfectly monotonic. The entire training period was required for performance to stabilize, possibly due to the conflict between the prime-target associationterm·prm and the irrelevance of the short tones. During training, subjects mA411, mB278, mA203, and mF68 required 13, 11, 8, and 16 validation sessions. After the training period ended, additional validation sessions were conducted to consolidate and measure performance on the validation task (Figures 4J–4L). The median [IQR] number of trials was 261 [173 366] per session, of which 52 [30 79] were VTs (n = 66 sessions in four mice). During the post-learning period, subjects mB278, mA203, and mF68 consistently ignored the short tones (Figure 4J). Subject mA411, which was trained on the discrimination and validation tasks in parallel, exhibited distinct behavior, performing closer to chance level during not-ignored VTs (Figure 4K). Regardless, all mice rendered the short tones irrelevant: subject-specific irrelevance scores were 0.95 [0.68 1.00] (n = 14 sessions, mA411); 0.88 [0.78 0.91] (n = 10, mB278); 0.98 [0.95 0.99] (n = 21, mA203); and 0.88 [0.77 0.93] (n = 21, mF68; Figure 4L). Overall, the post-learning irrelevance scores were 0.94 [0.86 0.99] (n = 66). Thus, all mice learned to ignore the short tone stimuli.

All mice show a primingterm·prm effect in success ratesterm The third stage contained primingterm·prm sessions. Every primingterm·prm session consisted of DTs, identical to the DTs employed during discrimination sessions, and PTs. Every PT included a short pure tone (the prime stimulus) followed by a long tone (the target stimulus; Figures 2D and 2E, bottom). PTs in which the short and long tones are of the same frequency are called congruent PTs (CPTs), whereas PTs in which the frequencies of iScience 26, 107847, October 20, 2023date iScience Article OPEN ACCESS the short and long tones differ are called incongruent PTs (IPTs). During PTs, the mouse was rewarded in the same manner as during DTs, namely for poking the right port following a low long tone, and for poking the left port following a high long tone (Figure 2C).

All PTs of an example primingterm·prm session are shown in Figure 5A. The session included 234 trials, of which 91 were PTs and the rest were DTs. Of the PTs, 48 were CPTs (Figure 5A, left) and 43 were IPTs (Figure 5A, right). The mouse made a correct choice during 47/48 (98%) of the CPTs and during 35/43 (81%) of the IPTs. We quantified the ‘‘primingterm·prm effect’’ in success ratesterm by the difference between CPT and IPT success ratesterm, which was 17% in the example session (p = 0.011, permutation testterm·stat). Thus, in the specific case there was a consistent effect of the short tones on choice to the long tones: a short-term primingterm·prm effect.

In contrast to the discrimination and validation tasks, we did not train the mice on any specific criterion during PTs. However, success ratesterm were higher during CPTs compared with IPTs during all sessions of every mouse, with only one exceptional session (see in the following). For instance, subject mB278 exhibited a median [IQR] primingterm·prm effect of 16% [10% 26%], with a range of [7%, 39%] (Figures 5C and 5D). The primingterm·prm effect was significant only in some of the sessions (7/15 sessions with p < 0.05, permutation testterm·stat; Figure 5E; dark gray lines in Figure 5F, second panel from left). However, a positive primingterm·prm effect was observed in all sessions of the same subject (15/15; p < 0.001, Wilcoxon’s paired signed-rank test; Figure 5F, second panel from left). Similar results were observed in the other mice: success ratesterm were consistently higher during CPTs compared with IPTs in all subjects (p < 0.005 in all cases; Figure 5F).

We conducted a total of 52 primingterm·prm sessions in four mice, with a median [IQR] of 148 [91 199] trials per session, of which 71 [34 91] were PTs. There was a significant primingterm·prm effect in 14/52 (27%) of the sessions (dark gray lines in Figure 5F). The effect was positive in 51/52 (98%) of the sessions. In one session, success ratesterm were 88% during both CPTs and IPTs (Figure 5F, right panel). Subject-specific primingterm·prm effects were reproducible over subjects (Table 1; Figure 5G). Thus, all mice exhibited a consistent primingterm·prm effect, with a global primingterm·prm effect of 15.1% [9.1% 20%] (median [IQR] over n = 52 sessions).

None of the mice show a primingterm·prm effect in response times In human subjects, primingterm·prm effects are typically observed in response times28,55,56 or in both response times and success ratesterm.36,38,50 To determine whether mice exhibit a primingterm·prm effect in response times in addition to success ratesterm, we defined response time as the duration from target tone onset to side port selection (Figure 2D). For the same example session of subject mB278 described in Figure 5A, the median [IQR] response times were 487 [414 623] ms during n = 48 CPTs and 522 [460 697] ms during n = 43 IPTs (Figure 6A). During the example session, response times during CPTs and IPTs did not exhibit distinct medians (p = 0.15, U-test) or distinct variances (p = 0.49, permutation testterm·stat). Response times during same-session DTs were 540 [481 594] ms (n = 143), not consistently different from (p = 0.19) or with distinct variance (p = 0.51) compared to the PT response times.

At the session level, response times were not consistently longer or shorter during CPTs compared with IPTs during any session of subject mB278 (p > 0.05 in all cases; n = 15 sessions; light gray lines in Figure 6B, second panel from left). At the subject level, there was no consistent difference between CPTs and IPTs in neither median response times (p = 0.3, Wilcoxon’s paired signed-rank test) nor the variance of response times (p = 0.79, permutation testterm·stat; Figure 6B, second panel from left). Similar results were observed for the other three mice (session level: light gray lines in Figure 6B; subject level: p > 0.05 in all cases; Figure 6B). Of 52 primingterm·prm sessions, we observed a consistent difference in response times between CPTs and IPTs in only one session (dark gray line in Figure 6B, right panel). The global difference in response times was (cid:1)35 [-285 76] ms (median [IQR] over n = 52 primingterm·prm sessions; Figure 6C). In sum, none of the mice exhibited a primingterm·prm effect in response times. The lack of a primingterm·prm effect in response time may due to limited sensitivity of the primingterm·prm task to response time. To test the possibility, we compared response times between same-session PTs and DTs for all subjects (Figure 6D). Over all primingterm·prm sessions for which discrimination task data were available, the response times for all PTs (both CPTs and IPTs) were 1,146 [667 2051date] ms (median [IQR] over 45 sessions). During same-session DTs, response times were 815 [645 1101] ms, yielding a median [IQR] intra-session difference of 232 [-20 694] ms (p < 0.001; Wilcoxon’s signed-rank test). Furthermore, PT response times were more variable compared with same-session DTs (p < 0.001; permutation testterm·stat). Thus, response times differ between discrimination and PTs, but not between congruent and incongruent PTs.

The prime stimuli exert an effect on success rateterm via differential interferenceterm The specificity of the primingterm·prm effect to success ratesterm leaves open the question of whether congruent prime stimuli facilitate performance, incongruent primes interfere with performance, or both. Since success ratesterm during DTs were not perfect (median [IQR]: 88% [79% 91%]; n = 84 discrimination sessions), there may be room for both improvement and deterioration. To contrast the possibilities, we compared performance in CPTs, IPTs, and DTs during the same session. In the example session of subject mB278, the animal made correct choices during 131/143 (92%) DTs, 47/48 (98%) CPTs, and 35/43 (81%) IPTs (Figure 7A). The success ratesterm during CPTs were higher than during DTs (p = 0.005, Monte Carlo test; Figure 7B), and success ratesterm during IPTs were lower than during DTs (p = 0.007). Thus, success ratesterm during PTs may be either higher or lower than during same-session DTs.

To determine whether and in what direction performance is modified during CPTs and IPTs, we compared success ratesterm at the subject level. For subject mB278, there was a consistent intra-session difference (p < 0.05, Monte Carlo test) between IPT success ratesterm compared to DT success ratesterm during all 15/15 (100%) primingterm·prm sessions (p < 0.001, Wilcoxon’s paired test; dark gray lines at the right side of Figure 7C, top right panel). The median [IQR] interference was 21% [16% 31%] (n = 15 sessions). In contrast, the difference between same-session CPTs and DTs was consistent during 7/15 (47%) of the sessions (p = 0.03; dark gray lines at the left side of Figure 7C, top right panel) and the median [IQR] interference was 5.1% [-3.6% 11.6%]. Similar results were obtained for the other subjects (Figure 7C). Thus, although both facilitation and interference are observed during PTs, the dominant effect is interference.

iScience 26, 107847, October 20, 2023date OPEN ACCESS iScience Article Figure 5. All mice show a primingterm·prm effect in success ratesterm (A) All PTs during an example primingterm·prm session performed by subject mB278. Every dot indicates a single PT. Dot color represents the frequency of the target stimulus (300 ms tone), which can be 5 kHz (light-colored) or 10 kHz (dark-colored). The vertical location of the dot represents the response (choice), which can be the left port (bottom), ignorance (middle), or the right port (top). A primingterm·prm session with perfect performance would yield a graph with all dark-colored (violet or pink) dots on top and all light-colored (violet or pink) dots at the bottom. Left, All congruent PTs (CPTs) during the session. Right, All incongruent PTs (IPTs). In all bar graphs, error bars represent SEM. Success rateterm is higher during CPTs (98%) compared with IPTs (81%; p = 0.011, permutation testterm·stat). (B) The number of PTs during every primingterm·prm session of subject mB278. (C) Success ratesterm during the CPTs (violet) and during the IPTs (pink) of every session, for the same sessions as in B. Here and in D, error bands represent SEM. (D) The ‘‘primingterm·prm effect’’ during every session of subject mB278, defined as the difference between the same-session CPT and IPT success ratesterm. (E) The p valuesterm·stat of the primingterm·prm effect for every primingterm·prm session (permutation testterm·stat, comparing to an effect size of zero). Sessions with a significant (p < 0.05) primingterm·prm effect appear as enlarged empty circles. (F) Success ratesterm for all primingterm·prm sessions performed by subjects mA411, mB278, mA203, and mF68. Every violet dot represents the success rateterm during the CPTs during one session and is connected by a line with a pink dot, representing the success rateterm during the same-session IPTs. p valuesterm·stat, two-tailed Wilcoxon’s signedrank paired test. (G) Primingterm·prm effects for the four subjects. Boxplot conventions are the same as in Figure 3F. The overall primingterm·prm effect is 15% [9.1% 20%] (median [IQR], n = 52 sessions).

Over all primingterm·prm sessions for which data were available, the median [IQR] interference effect of the incongruent primes was 24% [17% 35%] (n = 45 sessions in four mice; Figure 7D). The incongruent primes modified success ratesterm during 40/45 (89%) sessions. In all 40 sessions, the effect of IPTs was interference. The median effect of congruent primes was also interference, 5.4% [0.95% 12%] (Figure 7E). However, in two sessions of two different subjects there was consistent facilitation (mB278, 6.3%; mA203, 7.4%). Thus, incongruent primes exert stronger interference compared with congruent primes, suggesting differential interferenceterm as a cognitive mechanism for short-term primingterm·prm in mice.

iScience 26, 107847, October 20, 2023date iScience Article OPEN ACCESS Table 1. Primingterm·prm effect in every animal subject Animal ID Straina mA411 mB278 mA203 mF68 HYB HYB HYB C57 Sex Female Male Male Male Ageb [weeks] Weightb [g] Primingterm·prm effectc 19.4 30.5 32.8 8.9% [3.3 12.5]% (n = 9) 16.5% [10.1 25.7]% (n = 15) 14.7% [8.9 17.9]% (n = 12) 17.4% [12.5 35.6]% (n = 16) aHYB, hybrid mice, the F1 generation of an FVB/NJ female and a C57-derived male. bAt the beginning of the training period, excluding the weight of the implant (mA203 and mF68). cMedian [IQR] (number of primingterm·prm sessions).

DISCUSSION We developed a short-term response primingterm·prm paradigm for mice. Four subjects were trained on the auditory task, and all mice exhibited a primingterm·prm effect in success rateterm. However, none of the mice exhibited a primingterm·prm effect in response times. The prime stimuli exerted their effect via differential interferenceterm, predominantly during incongruent PTs. The paradigm enables investigating the neurobiological basis of the short-term primingterm·prm phenomenon with a set of tools applicable to mice.

Task design and training procedures A short-term response primingterm·prm task must include three features: an associationterm·prm between the prime stimulus and the target stimulus (or the response), irrelevance of the prime stimulus to the response, and a conflict between the associationterm·prm and the irrelevance. In the present paradigm, the prime-choice associationterm·prm was spontaneous, building upon the natural similarity between short and long tones of the same frequency. Thus, after training the mice on the stimulus-response contingency (Figure 2C), the key feature that must be learned is the irrelevance of the short tones to the response. The tendency of mice trained on the stimulus-response contingency to choose a side port following a short tone had to be suppressed, and a middle port reward was utilized during VTs and maintained during PTs.

The addition of a middle port reward did not obscure the primingterm·prm effect in success ratesterm between CPTs and IPTs (Figure 5G) but likely contributed to the prolonged response times during PTs as opposed to DTs (Figure 6D), and thus alternative designs may be considered. One possibility could be to first train the animals on the irrelevance of all short tones using, e.g., a Go/No-Go paradigm. However, subsequent training on the stimulus-response contingency would extinct the irrelevance of short tones due to the natural similarity between same-frequency short and long tones, again requiring the usage of a middle port reward. More generally, because frequency and duration are two features of the played tone, learning one of them in stage 2 will extinct what was learned in stage 1. A second possibility is to punish the subject during PTs if a side port is selected before the target tone begins. Suppression of the natural tendency to select a side port would need to be established before initiating PTs, so punishment-based training on the validation task would also be required. Effective punishment can take the form of an electric shock, an air puff, or simply an annoying sound, but runs the risk of distracting the subjects, thereby reducing the regularity of behavior and the number of trials. A third possibility is to equate the conditions between the DTs and PTs by adding a middle port reward during DTs. However, the response time variability during PTs is not expected to be reduced.

Rendering the prime stimuli (short tones) irrelevant to the response involved training the subjects on the validation task, which may have caused the prime stimuli to acquire a negative associationterm·prm value and required weeks of training. One alternative design may involve categorically different prime stimuli, e.g., noise bursts of different pitches. This may help establishing a primingterm·prm paradigm which cannot have repetition as one of its building blocks, since after the first exposure the short tones would not be novel any longer. A validation stage will then be required. A second alternative is to employ purely neutral stimuli (e.g., colors). However, neutral stimuli would not be naturally associated with the target stimuli and will require the additional learning of the associationterm·prm with the target stimuli in order to generate a primingterm·prm effect. The irrelevance of the neutral stimuli will still have to be learned, again requiring training on the validation task, with either negative or positive reinforcement.

To summarize, in a short-term response primingterm·prm paradigm, the prime stimuli must be initially associated with the target stimuli (or with the choice). The associationterm·prm can be learned or natural. However, with animals, the associationterm·prm requires a validation period to establish irrelevance of the prime stimuli to the choice before primingterm·prm can be assessed.

Comparison to human studies In most human response primingterm·prm paradigms, the primingterm·prm effect is detected in response time.28,31,57,58 Success ratesterm remain at the ceiling and are unmodified by the prime-target congruency. In other studies, the primingterm·prm effect is found in both success ratesterm and response times.36,38 Then, the typical effect of the prime stimuli on success ratesterm is reduction during IPTs, without modifying the already-perfect performance during CPTs.50 Thus, response times are more sensitive than success ratesterm in human response primingterm·prm studies.

In the present mouse experiments, we found a primingterm·prm effect only in success ratesterm, providing two qualitative differences between human36,38,50 and mouse performance (Figure 1C). First, in mice, the primingterm·prm effect is in success ratesterm and not in response times, whereas in humans, the primingterm·prm effect is both in success ratesterm and response times. The fact that success ratesterm exhibited a clear primingterm·prm effect may iScience 26, 107847, October 20, 2023date OPEN ACCESS iScience Article Figure 6. None of the mice show a primingterm·prm effect in response times (A) Response times during all PTs carried out in an example primingterm·prm session performed by subject mB278 (same session as described in Figure 5A). In a given PT, response time is defined as the duration from stimulus onset (target tone) to the response (side-port choice; Figure 2D, bottom). Left, The response times in each trial of the session. The bottom half of the graph corresponds to the response times in IPTs (pink) and the top half of the graph corresponds to the response times in CPTs (violet). Right, Response times during the example session are not consistently different between n = 48 CPTs and n = 43 IPTs (p = 0.15, Mann-Whitney U-test). Here and in C, boxplot conventions are the same as Figure 3F. (B) Median response times for all CPTs and IPTs during every primingterm·prm session of every subject. p valuesterm·stat, two-tailed Wilcoxon’s signed-rank paired test. Sample sizesterm·stat and all other conventions are the same as in Figure 5F. (C) The differences of response times across all primingterm·prm sessions for the four subjects. (D) Response times for all CPTs, DTs, and IPTs during every primingterm·prm session of every subject. */**: p < 0.05/p < 0.01, two-tailed Wilcoxon’s signed-rank paired test. All other conventions are the same as in Figure 5F.

suggest that response time is not a necessary metric. Second, in mice, the main effect of the prime stimuli is interference, whereas in humans the main effect is interference following incongruent prime stimuli and improvement (or no effect) following congruent primes.

The first difference, namely the lack of an observed primingterm·prm effect in mouse response times between congruent and incongruent PTs may stem from the different task requirements or from the different setting and apparatus used for humans and mice. Physical requirements differ, since moving your entire body toward the correct port in every trial demands much more energy compared to pressing a button. For both discrimination and PTs, the port visited in the previous trial may be reflected in body orientation at the beginning of a new trial, increasing mouse response time variability compared to humans. Variability was even higher during mouse PTs compared with DTs, due to the increased cognitive load during the processing of two stimuli as opposed to one, the consumption of the middle port reward, or other sources. Alternatively, it is possible that even when performing the exact same task with the exact same settings, humans and mice would have different time constants and exhibit different temporal variability.

The second difference, namely that the main effect of the prime stimuli on mouse performance is interference may indicate that the mere presence of the additional prime stimulus distracts and hinders mouse behavior more than human behavior. Perceiving the prime as a distractor may stem from differences in some cognitive abilities between humans and mice. For instance, humans and mice may assign different attentional weights to different kinds of events and may have different attitudes to the concept of a behavioral experiment.

iScience 26, 107847, October 20, 2023date iScience Article OPEN ACCESS Figure 7. The prime stimuli exert an effect on success rateterm via differential interferenceterm (A) All trials during an example primingterm·prm session of mB278 (same session as described in Figures 5A and 6A). CPTs, DTs, and IPTs are presented in a pseudorandom order. Trials with correct choices are shown on top, and trials with incorrect choices at the bottom. Stimulus frequency is not indicated. (B) Success ratesterm during the three trial types for the session shown in A. Error bars represent SEM. **: p < 0.01, Monte Carlo test. (C) The success ratesterm for all CPTs, DTs, and IPTs during every primingterm·prm session of every subject. */**/***: p < 0.05/p < 0.01/p < 0.001, two-tailed Wilcoxon’s signedrank paired test. All other conventions are the same as in Figure 5F. (D) The interference effect during IPTs, defined as the session-specific difference between success ratesterm during DTs and PTs. Here and in E, boxplot conventions are the same as in Figure 3F. (E) Interference during CPTs.

Extension to non-auditory, multi-modal, and unconscious primingterm·prm The current paradigm involves a specific auditory intra-modal short-term response primingterm·prm task. However, the apparatus employed for the task was designed to be suitable for various extensions. First, the structure of the apparatus enables the development of a visual primingterm·prm task in mice. For instance, blue light may be associated with left port choice, and green light with right port choice. Second, the apparatus also allows the potential study of inter-modal primingterm·prm,29,58,59 in which the prime stimulus would be auditory, and the target stimulus would be visual, or vice versa. As opposed to the natural associationterm·prm between short and long tones of the same frequency, the prime-target associationterm·prm will have to be learned for inter-modal primingterm·prm because colors are not naturally associated with tones. Third, the apparatus allows extending the conscious primingterm·prm paradigm to an unconscious primingterm·prm paradigm,60–62 for instance, by using white noise to provide forward and/or backward masking of the prime stimuli.

Primingterm·prm paradigms that include masks allow testing the influence of different types of unconscious processing on conscious performance.63–65 Indeed, unconscious primingterm·prm paradigms provide a window for researching unconscious processing pathways that subjects cannot report. Because of the relative complexity of the paradigm, unconscious short-term memory is presently studied almost only in iScience 26, 107847, October 20, 2023date OPEN ACCESS iScience Article humans, limiting the questions that can be asked and mechanisms that can be studied. Thus, future extensions of the present mouse primingterm·prm paradigm may allow studying unconscious processing in rodents.

A key issue during the study of unconscious processing is the necessity to verify that the stimulus was not perceived. With humans, the verification may involve a subjective report, but with animals, other methods are necessary. The mouse primingterm·prm task can be extended to study unconscious processing as follows. Referring to Figures 2B and 2D, trials during discrimination sessions (stage 1) can be supplemented with two consecutive auditory white noise masks before the target (long) stimulus. During PTs, the same white noise masks can be split into two stimuli that flank the prime (short) stimulus. Because mice previously trained on the discrimination task typically choose a side port when initially exposed to short tones (Figures 4D and 4H), a lack of response to short tone can be interpreted as efficient masking, or unconscious processing. Then, the validation task (stage 2) can be replaced with a calibration task in which the short tones are preceded and followed by the same white noise masks, omitting the long tones. By modifying the duration of the short tones and quantifying success ratesterm, the longest ignored tone duration can be determined for every subject and utilized as the duration of the prime stimuli in the primingterm·prm task (stage 3). An unconscious primingterm·prm paradigm may enable the study of neural correlates of consciousness in freely moving mice.

Using the rodent paradigm to study the neurobiological basis of primingterm·prm The neurobiological basis of sensitization, habituation, adaptation, and explicit short-term memory has been studied extensively.66 However, primingterm·prm uniquely requires (1) an associationterm·prm between the prime stimulus and the target stimulus (or the response), (2) irrelevance of the prime stimulus to the response, and (3) a conflict between the associationterm·prm and the irrelevance. Indeed, several types of memory, including implicit short-term memory, have not been studied with invasive techniques, and their neurobiological basis is yet unknown.

Freely moving mice have emerged as a robust model for studying various neuronal mechanisms using high-density silicon probe recordings combined with optogenetics.67–69 Here, we created a conscious short-term response primingterm·prm paradigm for mice. We tested the paradigm and found a consistent primingterm·prm effect of success rateterm in all subjects, and the key features of the human primingterm·prm phenomenon were observed in the mice. The paradigm is suitable for freely moving mice but can be adapted to other animal species and to head-fixed subjects, which is less organic but may provide reduced variability and an increased number of trials. We propose that the paradigm and the future extensions thereof provide a platform for researching the neurobiological mechanisms underlying short-term primingterm·prm, using tools including genetic targeting, molecular analyses, and cellular-network electrophysiology. As such, the present work forms a necessary first step for investigating the intracortical cellular-network level basis of short-term primingterm·prm in particular, and of implicit short-term memory in general.

Limitations of the study Several limitations must be noted. First, we employed a fixed duration of the post-prime delay during PTs. In human primingterm·prm studies, the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) has a considerable influence on the outcome,50 and introducing variability with mice may reveal a primingterm·prm effect in response times. Notably, large SOA variability may confuse the mice and reduce success ratesterm. Second, we used a middle port reward to render and to maintain the prime stimuli irrelevant to the response. While a primingterm·prm effect in success rateterm was clearly observed in all subjects, licking and reward-related neuronal activity involve widespread neuronal activation70–74 and may challenge detecting neuronal correlates of primingterm·prm. However, previous work showed that small neuronal signals riding on a large background can still be detected,69,72,75 and neuronal signals associated with multiple features may be demultiplexed.72,73,75,76 STAR+METHODS Detailed methods are provided in the online version of this paper and include the following: d KEY RESOURCES TABLE d RESOURCE AVAILABILITY B Lead contact B Materials availability B Data and code availability d EXPERIMENTAL MODEL AND STUDY PARTICIPANT DETAILS B Animals d METHOD DETAILS B Apparatus B Water deprivation during training and testing B The discrimination task B The validation task B The primingterm·prm task B Real-time countering of automated strategies d QUANTIFICATION AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS B Performance during the discrimination task B Performance during the validation task iScience 26, 107847, October 20, 2023date iScience Article B Performance during the primingterm·prm task B Statistical analyses SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION OPEN ACCESS Supplemental information can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023date.107847.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Liad Mudrik and Israel Nelken for useful discussions and suggestions. We thank Samuel Frere, Liad Mudrik, Shimrit Oz, and Tali Remenick for constructive comments. This work was supported by European Research Council 679253, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the Israel Science Foundation (ISF), and the Azrieli Foundation 2558/18.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS S.S. and E.S. conceived and designed the experiments. S.S., H.E.S., and E.S. designed and constructed the experimental apparatus. S.S. carried out the experiments. S.S. and E.S. analyzed data and wrote the manuscript with input from H.E.S.

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS The authors declare no competing interests.

Received: February 28, 2023date Revised: July 17, 2023date Accepted: September 5, 2023date Published: September 7, 2023date