Rats emit aversive 44-kHz ultrasonic vocalizations during prolonged Pavlovian fear conditioning

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Olszyński and colleagues present data showing variability from canonical "aversive calls", typically described as long 22 kHz calls rodents emit in aversive situations. Similarly long but higher-frequency (44 kHz) calls are presented as a distinct call type, including analyses both of their acoustic properties and animals' responses to hearing playback of these calls. While this work adds an intriguing and important reminder, namely that animal behavior is often more variable and complex than perhaps we would like it to be, there is some caution warranted in the interpretation of these data. The authors also do not provide adequate justification for the use of solely male rodents. With several reported sex differences in rat vocal behaviors this means caution should be exercised when generalizing from these findings.

Firstly, the authors argue that the shift to higher-frequency aversive calls is due to an increase in arousal (caused by the animals having received multiple aversive foot shocks towards the end of the protocols). However, it cannot be ruled out that this shift would be due to factors such as the passage of time and increase in fatigue of the animals as they make vocalizations (and other responses) for extended periods of time. In fact the gradual frequency increase reported for 22kHz calls and the drop in 44 kHz calls the next day in testing is in line with this.

Secondly, regarding the analysis where calls were sorted using DBSCAN based on peak frequency and duration, it is not surprising that the calls cluster based on frequency and duration, i.e. the features that are used to define the 44 kHz calls in the first place. Thus presenting this clustering as evidence of them being truly distinct call types comes across as a circular argument. The sparsity of calls in the 30-40 kHz range (shown in the individual animal panels in Figure 2C) could in theory be explained by some bioacoustics properties of rat vocal cords, without necessarily the calls below and above that range being ethologically distinct.

The behavioral response to call playback is intriguing, although again more in line with the hypothesis that these are not a distinct type of call but merely represent expected variation in vocalization parameters. Across the board animals respond rather similarly to hearing 22 kHz calls as they do to hearing 44 kHz calls, with occasional shifts of 44 kHz call responses to an intermediate between appetitive and aversive calls. This does raise interesting questions about how, ethologically, animals may interpret such variation and integrate this interpretation in their responses. However, the categorical approach employed here does not address these questions fully.

In sum, rather than describing the 44kHz long calls as a new call type, it may be more accurate to say that sometimes aversive calls can occur at frequencies above 22 kHz. Individual and situational variability in vocalization parameters seems to be expected, much more so than all members of a species strictly adhering to extremely non-variable behavioral outputs.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Olszyński et al. claim that they identified a "new-type" ultrasonic vocalization around 44 kHz that occurs in response to prolonged fear conditioning (using foot-shocks of relatively high intensity, i.e. 1 mA) in rats. Typically, negative 22-kHz calls and positive 50-kHz calls are distinguished in rats, commonly by using a frequency threshold of 30 or 32 kHz. Olszyński et al. now observed so-called "44-kHz" calls in a substantial number of subjects exposed to 10 tone-shock pairings, yet call emission rate was low (according to Fig. 1G around 15%, according to the result text around 7.5%). They also performed playback experiments and concluded that "the responses to 44-kHz aversive calls presented from the speaker were either similar to 22-kHz vocalizations or in-between responses to 22-kHz and 50-kHz playbacks".

Strengths: Detailed spectrographic analysis of a substantial data set of ultrasonic vocalizations recorded during prolonged fear conditioning, combined with playback experiments.

Weaknesses: I see a number of major weaknesses.

While the descriptive approach applied is useful, the findings have only focused importance and scope, given the low prevalence of "44 kHz" calls and limited attempts made to systematically manipulate factors that lead to their emission. In fact, the data presented appear to be derived from reanalyses of previously conducted studies in most cases and the main claims are only partially supported. While reading the manuscript, I got the impression that the data presented here are linked to two or three previously published studies (Olszyński et al., 2020, 2021, 2023). This is important to emphasize for two reasons: 1) It is often difficult (if not impossible) to link the reported data to the different experiments conducted before (and the individual experimental conditions therein). While reanalyzing previously collected data can lead to important insight, it is important to describe in a clear and transparent manner what data were obtained in what experiment (and more specifically, in what exact experimental condition) to allow appropriate interpretation of the data. For example, it is said that in the "trace fear conditioning experiment" both single- and group-housed rats were included, yet I was not able to tell what data were obtained in single- versus group-housed rats. This may sound like a side aspect, however, in my view this is not a side aspect given the fact that ultrasonic vocalizations are used for communication and communication is affected by the social housing conditions. 2) In at least two of the previously published manuscripts (Olszyński et al., 2021, 2023), emission of ultrasonic vocalizations was analyzed (Figure S1 in Olszyński et al., 2021, and Fig. 1 in Olszyński et al., 2023). This includes detailed spectrographic analyses covering the frequency range between 20 and 100 kHz, i.e. including the frequency range, where the "new-type" ultrasonic vocalization, now named "44 kHz" call, occurs, as reflected in the examples provided in Fig. 1 of Olszyński et al. (2023). In the materials and methods there, it was said: "USV were assigned to one of three categories: 50-kHz (mean peak frequency, MPF >32 kHz), short 22-kHz (MPF of 18-32 kHz, <0.3 s duration), long 22-kHz (MPF of 18-32 kHz, >0.3 s duration)". Does that mean that the "44 kHz" calls were previously included in the count for 50-kHz calls? Or were 44 kHz calls (intentionally?) left out? What does that mean for the interpretation of the previously published data? What does that mean for the current data set? In my view, there is a lack of transparency here.

Moreover, whether the newly identified call type is indeed novel is questionable, as also mentioned by the authors in their discussion section. While they wrote in the introduction that "high-pitch (>32 kHz), long and monotonous ultrasonic vocalizations have not yet been described", they wrote in the discussion that "long (or not that long (Biały et al., 2019)), frequency-stable high-pitch vocalizations have been reported before (e.g. Sales, 1979; Shimoju et al., 2020), notably as caused by intense cholinergic stimulation (Brudzynski and Bihari, 1990) or higher shock-dose fear conditioning (Wöhr et al., 2005)" (and I wish to add that to my knowledge this list provided by the authors is incomplete). Therefore, I believe, the strong claims made in abstract ("we are the first to describe a new-type..."), introduction ("have not yet been described"), and results ("new calls") are not justified.

In general, the manuscript is not well written/ not well organized, the description of the methods is insufficient, and it is often difficult (if not impossible) to link the reported data to the experiments/ experimental conditions described in the materials and methods section. For example, I miss a clear presentation of basic information: 1) How many rats emitted "44 kHz" calls (in total, per experiment, and importantly, also per experimental condition, i.e. single- versus group-housed)? 2) Out of the ones emitting "44 kHz" calls, what was the prevalence of "44 kHz" calls (relative to 22- and 50-kHz calls, e.g. shown as percentage)? 3) How did this ratio differ between experiments and experimental conditions? 4) Was there a link to freezing? Freezing was apparently analyzed before (Olszyński et al., 2021, 2023) and it would be important to see whether there is a correlation between "44-kHz" calls and freezing. Moreover, it would be important to know what behavior the rats are displaying while such "44-kHz" calls are emitted? (Note: Even not all 22-kHz calls are synced to freezing.) All this could help to substantiate the currently highly speculative claims made in the discussion section ("frequency increases with an increase in arousal" and "it could be argued that our prolonged fear conditioning increased the arousal of the rats with no change in the valence of the aversive stimuli"). Such more detailed analyses are also important to rule out the possibility that the "new-type" ultrasonic vocalization, the so-called "44 kHz" call, is simply associated with movement/ thorax compression.

The figures currently included are purely descriptive in most cases - and many of them are just examples of individual rats (e.g. majority of Fig. 1, all of Fig. 2 to my understanding, with the exception of the time course, which in case of D is only a subset of rats ("only rats that emitted 44-kHz calls in at least seven ITI are plotted" - is there any rationale for this criterion?)), or, in fact, just representative spectrograms of calls (all of Fig. 3, with the exception of G, all of Fig. 4). Moreover, the differences between Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 are not clear to me. It seems Fig. 5B is included three times - what is the benefit of including the same figure three times? A systematic comparison of experimental conditions is limited to Fig. 7 and Fig. 8, the figures depicting the playback results (which led to the conclusion that "the responses to 44-kHz aversive calls presented from the speaker were either similar to 22-kHz vocalizations or in-between responses to 22-kHz and 50-kHz playbacks", although it remains unclear to me why differences were seen b e f o r e the experimental manipulation, i.e. the different playback types in Fig. 8B).

Related to that, I miss a clear presentation of relevant methodological aspects: 1) Why were some rats single-housed but not the others? 2) Is the experimental design of the playback study not confounded? It is said that "one group (n = 13) heard 50-kHz appetitive vocalization playback while the other (n = 16) 22-kHz and 44-kHz aversive calls". How can one compare "44 kHz" calls to 22- and 50-kHz calls when "44 kHz" calls are presented together with 22-kHz calls but not 50-kHz calls? What about carry-over effects? Hearing one type of call most likely affects the response to the other type of call. It appears likely that rats are a bit more anxious after hearing aversive 22-kHz calls, for example. Therefore, it would not be very surprising to see that the response to "44 kHz" calls is more similar to 22-kHz calls than 50-kHz calls. Of note, in case of the other playback experiment it is just said that rats "received appetitive and aversive ultrasonic vocalization playback" but it remains unclear whether "44 kHz" calls are seen as appetitive or aversive. Later it says that "rats were presented with two 10-s-long playback sets of either 22-kHz or 44-kHz calls, followed by one 50-kHz modulated call 10-s set and another two playback sets of either 44-kHz or 22-kHz calls not previously heard" (and wonder what data set was included in the figures and how - pooled?). Again, I am worried about carry-over effects here. This does not seem to be an experimental design that allows to compare the response to the three main call types in an unbiased manner. Of note, what exactly is meant by "control rats" in the context of fear conditioning is also not clear to me. One can think of many different controls in a fear conditioning experiment. More concrete information is needed.