Perceptual learning performance in a forepaw-based decision-making task.

For panels B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K: n=9 WT, 11 Fmr1-/y mice. A, Left: schema showing the behavioral setup. Right: Trail protocol and behavioral outcomes depending on the type of trial and the animal’s response. B, Total number of days spent in training for WT and Fmr1-/y mice. C, Total number of days spent in training until the criterion was met for high-salience stimuli for WT and Fmr1-/y mice. D, Total number of days spent in training until the criterion was met for low-salience stimuli for WT and Fmr1-/y mice. E, Sensitivity d’ throughout the training period for WT and Fmr1-/y mice. F, Sensitivity d’ throughout the training period during high-salience trials for WT and Fmr1-/y mice. G, Sensitivity d’ throughout the training period during low-salience trials for WT and Fmr1-/y mice. H, Correct choice rate for both high- and low-salience trails throughout the training period for WT and Fmr1-/y mice. I, Incorrect choice rate for both high- and low-salience trails throughout the training period for WT and Fmr1-/y mice. J, Incorrect choice rate for high-salience trails throughout the training period for WT and Fmr1-/y mice. K, Incorrect choice rate for low-salience trails throughout the training period for WT and Fmr1-/y mice. P values were computed using two-sided t-test for panels B, E, G, H, I, J; Mann-Whitney test for panels C, D, F, K; *P < 0.05 or n.s, not significant. Created with BioRender.com.

Overall strategy and impact of prior choice during perceptual learning.

For panels A, C, D, E, F: n=9 WT, 11 Fmr1-/y mice. A, Criterion depicting the licking strategy of the animals. B, Schema showing an example of how high impact of prior choice on the current trial affects the response during a high-salience trial (top) or low-salience trial (bottom). C, Proportion of incorrect responses in low-salience trials immediately following a correctly rewarded high-salience trial. D, Proportion of incorrect responses in high-salience trials immediately following a correctly rewarded low-salience trial. E, Proportion of correct responses in low-salience trials immediately following a correctly rewarded low-salience trial and incorrect responses in low-salience trials immediately following a correctly rewarded high-salience trial. Rates are corrected over the total number of correct and incorrect choices in low-salience trials. F, Proportion of correct responses in high-salience trials immediately following a correctly rewarded high-salience trial and incorrect responses in high-salience trials immediately following a correctly rewarded low-salience trial. Rates are corrected over the total number of correct and incorrect choices in high-salience trials. P values were computed using two-sided t-test for panels C, D, F,; Mann-Whitney test for panels A, E,; *P < 0.05 or n.s, not significant.

Tactile discrimination and categorization.

n=6 WT, 9 Fmr1-/y mice. A, Psychometric curves for WT and Fmr1-/y mice generated based on the high-salience lick rate (rate of rightward licks) across 8 different amplitudes. Stimuli between 12–18 µm were designated as low-salience and rewarded at the left lickport, while stimuli between 20–26 µm were designated as high-salience and rewarded at the right lickport. Each amplitude was presented an average of 84 times. B, Comparison of high-salience (rightwards) responses for high-salience stimuli of 26 and 26 µm. C, Comparison of high-salience (rightwards) responses for high-salience stimuli of 26 and 22 µm. D, Comparison of high-salience (rightwards) responses for low-salience stimuli of 12 and 14 µm. E, Comparison of low-salience (leftwards) responses for low-salience stimuli of 12 and 14 µm. F, Categorization thresholds calculated based on the psychometric curves. G, Categorization accuracy computed based on the slope of the psychometric curves. H, Sensitivity d’ of the responses in all stimulus amplitudes. P values were computed using Mixed Linear Model Regression (main effect of genotype) for panel A,; two-sided paired t-test for panels B, C, D, E,; two-sided t-test for panels F, G, H,; Wilcoxon signed-rank test for panels B, C,; **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05, or n.s, not significant.

Impact of categorization on across-categories and within-category discrimination.

n=6 WT, 9 Fmr1-/y mice. (A-C) Delta discrimination accuracy, calculated as the difference in the rate of high-salience licks between across-category stimuli (18 µm vs 20 µm) and within-category low-salience stimulus pairs: A, 12 µm vs 14 µm; B, 14 µm vs 16 µm; C, 16 µm vs 18 µm. (D-F) Delta discrimination accuracy, calculated as the difference in the rate of high-salience licks between across-category stimuli (18 µm vs 20 µm) and within-category high-salience stimulus pairs D, 20 µm vs 22 µm; E, 22 µm vs 24 µm; F, 24 µm vs 26 µm. G, Delta discrimination accuracy calculated as the difference in the rate of high-salience licks between the across-category stimulus pair (18 µm vs 20 µm) and the average discrimination across G, all low-salience stimulus pairs (12–14 µm, 14–16 µm, and 16–18 µm) and H, all high-salience stimulus pairs (12–14 µm, 14–16 µm, and 16–18 µm). I, Delta discrimination accuracy calculated as the difference in the rate of high-salience licks between the two extreme amplitudes within the low-salience category. J, Delta discrimination accuracy calculated as the difference in the rate of high-salience licks between the two extreme amplitudes within the high-salience category. K, Delta discrimination accuracy calculated as the difference in the rate of high-salience licks between all stimuli within the low-salience category. P values were computed using two-sided paired t-test for panels A, B, C, D, E, F,; Mann-Whitney test for panels G, H,; two-sided paired t-test for panels I, J, K,; **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05, or n.s, not significant.

Attention in perceptual decision-making under high cognitive load.

n=6 WT, 9 Fmr1-/y mice. A, Proportion of missed high-salience trials. B, Proportion of missed low-salience trials. C, Proportion of missed 12 µm low-salience trials. D, Proportion of missed 14 µm low-salience trials. E, Proportion of missed 16 µm low-salience trials. F, Proportion of missed 18 µm low-salience trials. P values were computed using Mann-Whitney test for panel A, E, F,; two-sided t-test for panel B, C, D,; *P < 0.05, or n.s, not significant.

Perceptual learning duration for the different training phases and correct choice rates.

n=9 WT, 11 Fmr1-/y mice. A, Total number of days spent in the training phase where stimulus delivery is done in blocks of high- or low-salience stimuli. B, Total number of days spent in training with high- and low-salience stimuli are delivered in a pseudorandom manner. C, Correct choice rate for high-salience trails throughout the training period for WT and Fmr1-/y mice. D, Correct choice rate for low-salience trails throughout the training period for WT and Fmr1-/y mice. P values were computed using two-sided t-test for panels A, B, C, D; n.s, not significant.

Prior strength and attention during perceptual learning.

n=9 WT, 11 Fmr1-/y mice. A, Strength of the prior build for high-salience trials, calculated as the proportion of correct high-salience and incorrect low-salience responses following a correct high-salience response. Rates are corrected over the rate of overall correct high-salience and incorrect low-salience responses. B, Strength of the prior build for low-salience trials, calculated as the proportion of correct low-salience and incorrect high-salience responses following a correct low-salience response. Rates are corrected over the rate of overall correct low-salience and incorrect high-salience responses. C, Proportion of missed high-salience trials. D, Proportion of missed low-salience trials. E, Within-genotype comparisons of the proportion of missed high- and low-salience trials. P values were computed using two-sided t-test for panels A, B,; Mann-Whitney test for panels C, D,; Wilcoxon signed-rank test for panel E,; ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, or n.s, not significant.

Perceptual learning performance during the last three days of training, for mice that were tested in tactile discrimination.

n=6 WT, 9 Fmr1-/y mice. A, Sensitivity d’ for both high- and low-salience trials throughout the last three days of the training period for WT and Fmr1-/y mice. B, Sensitivity d’ for high-salience trials throughout the last three days of the training period. C, Sensitivity d’ for low-salience trials throughout the last three days of the training period. D, Proportion of correct choices for high-salience trails throughout the last three days of the training period. E, Proportion of correct choices for low-salience trails throughout the last three days of the training period. F, Proportion of incorrect choices for high-salience trails throughout the last three days of the training period. G, Proportion of correct choices for low-salience trails throughout the last three days of the training period. H, Criterion depicting the licking strategy of the animals. I, Proportion of correct responses in high-salience trials immediately following a correctly rewarded high-salience trial. J, Proportion of correct responses in low-salience trials immediately following a correctly rewarded low-salience trial. K, Proportion of incorrect responses in high-salience trials immediately following a correctly rewarded low-salience trial. L, Proportion of incorrect responses in low-salience trials immediately following a correctly rewarded high-salience trial. M, Proportion of correct responses in high-salience trials immediately following a correctly rewarded high-salience trial and incorrect responses in high-salience trials immediately following a correctly rewarded low-salience trial. Rates are corrected over the total number of correct and incorrect choices in high-salience trials. N, Proportion of correct responses in low-salience trials immediately following a correctly rewarded low-salience trial and incorrect responses in low-salience trials immediately following a correctly rewarded high-salience trial. Rates are corrected over the total number of correct and incorrect choices in low-salience trials. O, Proportion of missed high-salience trials. P, Proportion of missed low-salience trials. P values were computed using two-sided t-test for panels A, C, D, E, F, G, I, J, K, L, M, N, P; Mann-Whitney test for panel O; n.s, not significant.

Sensitivity, correct, and incorrect choices during categorization of high- and low-salience stimuli.

n=6 WT, 9 Fmr1-/y mice. A, Sensitivity d’ for high-salience stimuli during categorization. B, Sensitivity d’ for low-salience stimuli during categorization. C, Correct responses for high-salience stimuli during categorization. D, Correct responses for low-salience stimuli during categorization. E, Incorrect responses for high-salience stimuli during categorization. F, Incorrect responses for low-salience stimuli during categorization. P values were computed using two-sided t-test for all panels; n.s. not significant.

Overall strategy and impact of prior choice during stimulus categorization and discrimination.

n=6 WT, 9 Fmr1-/y mice. A, Criterion depicting the licking strategy of the animals B, Proportion of correct responses in high-salience trials immediately following a correctly rewarded high-salience trial. C, Proportion of correct responses in low-salience trials immediately following a correctly rewarded low-salience trial. D, Proportion of incorrect responses in high-salience trials immediately following a correctly rewarded low-salience trial. E, Proportion of incorrect responses in low-salience trials immediately following a correctly rewarded high-salience trial. P values were computed using two-sided t-test for all panel A, B, C, D,; Mann-Whitney test for panel E,; n.s, not significant.