Acquisition of auditory discrimination mediated by different processes through two distinct circuits linked to the lateral striatum

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this study, Setogawa et al. employ an auditory discrimination task in freely moving rats, coupled with small animal imaging, electrophysiological recordings, and pharmacological inhibition/lesioning experiments to better understand the role of two striatal subregions: the anterior Dorsal Lateral Striatum (aDLS) and the posterior Ventrolateral Striatum (pVLS), during auditory discrimination learning. Attempting to better understand the contribution of different striatal subregions to sensory discrimination learning strikes me as a highly relevant and timely question, and the data presented in this study are certainly of major interest to the field. The authors have set up a robust behavioral task and systematically tackled the question about a striatal role in learning with multiple observational and manipulative techniques. Additionally, the structured approach the authors take by using neuroimaging to inform their pharmacological manipulation experiments and electrophysiological recordings is a strength.

However, the results as they are currently presented are not easy to follow and could use some restructuring, especially the electrophysiology. Also, the main conclusion that the authors draw from the data, that aDLS and pVLS contribute to different phases of discrimination learning and influence the animal's response strategy in different ways, is not strongly supported by the data and deserves some additional caveats and limitations of the study in the discussion.

Strengths:

See above. In addition, the electrophysiology data is a major strength.

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors have rigorously used PET neuroimaging, which is an interesting non-invasive method to track brain activity during behavioral states. However, in the case of a freely moving behavior where the scans are performed ~30 minutes after the behavioral task, it is unclear what conclusions can be drawn about task-specific brain activity. The study hinges on the neuroimaging findings that both areas of the lateral striatum (aDLS and pVLS) show increased activity during acquisition, but the DMS shows a reduction in activity during the late stages of behavior, and some of these findings are later validated with complementary experiments. However, the limitations of this technique can be further elaborated on in the discussion and the conclusions.

a) In commenting on the unilateral shifts in brain striatal activity during behavior, the authors use the single lever task as a control, where many variables affecting neuronal activity might be different than in the discriminatory task. The study might be better served using Day 2 measurements as a control against which to compare activity of all other sessions since the task structures are similar.
b) From the plots in J, K, and L, it seems that shifts in activity in the different substructures are not unilateral but consistently bilateral, in contrast to what is mentioned in the text. Possibly the text reflects comparisons to the single lever task, and here again, I would emphasize comparing within the same task.

(2) In Figure 2, the authors present compelling data that chronic excitotoxic lesions with ibotenic acid in the aDLS, pVLS, and DMS produce differential effects on discrimination learning. However, the significant reduction in success rate of performance happens as early as Day 6 in both IBO groups in both aDLS and pVLS mice. This would seem to agree with conclusions drawn about the role of aDLS in the middle stages of learning in Figure 2, but not the pVLS, which only shows an increased activity during the late stages of the behavior.

(3) In Figure 4, the authors show interesting data with transient inactivation of subregions of the striatum with muscimol, validating their findings that the aDLS mediates the middle and the pVLS the late stages of learning, and the function of each area serves different strategies. However, the inference that aDLS inactivation suppresses the WSW strategy "moderately" is not reflected in the formal statistical value p=0.06. While there still may be a subtle effect, the authors would need to revise their conclusions appropriately to reflect the data. In addition, the authors could try a direct comparison between the success rate during muscimol inhibition in the mid-learning session between the aDLS and pVLS-treated groups in Figure 4C (middle) and 4D (middle). If this comparison is not significant, the authors should be careful to claim that inhibition of these two areas differentially affects behavior.

(4) The authors have used in-vivo electrophysiological techniques to systematically investigate the roles of the aDLS and the pVLS in discriminatory learning, and have done a thorough analysis of responses with each phase of behavior over the course of learning. This is a commendable and extremely informative dataset and is a strength of the study. However, the result could be better organized following the sequence of events of the behavioral task to give the reader an easier structure to follow. Ideally, this would involve an individual figure to compare the responses in both areas to Cue, Lever Press, Reward Sound, and First Lick (in this order).

(5) An important conceptual point presented in the study is that the aDLS neurons, with learning, show a reduction in firing rates and responsiveness to the first lick as well as the behavioral outcome, and don't play a role in other task-related events such as cue onset. However, the neuroimaging data in Figure 2 seems to suggest a transient enhancement of aDLS activity in the mid-stage of discriminatory learning, that is not reflected in the electrophysiology data. Is there an explanation for this difference?

(6) A significant finding of the study is that CO-HR and CO-LL responses are strikingly obvious in the pVLS, but not in the aDLS, in line with the literature that the posterior (sensory) striatum processes sound. This study also shows that responses to the high-frequency tone indicating a correct right-lever choice increase with learning in contrast to the low-frequency tone responses. To further address whether this difference arises from the task contingency, and not from the frequency representation of the pVLS, an important control would be to switch the cue-response association in a separate group of mice, such that high-frequency tones require a left lever press and vice versa. This would also help tease apart task-evoked responses in the aDLS, as I am given to understand all the recording sites were in the left striatum.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The study by Setogawa et al. aims to understand the role that different striatal subregions belonging to parallel brain circuits have in associative learning and discrimination learning (S-O-R and S-R tasks). Strengths of the study are the use of multiple methodologies to measure and manipulate brain activity in rats, from microPET imaging to excitotoxic lesions and multielectrode recordings across anterior dorsolateral (aDLS), posterior ventral lateral (pVLS)and dorsomedial (DMS) striatum.

The main conclusions are that the aDLS promotes stimulus-response association and suppresses response-outcome associations. The pVLS is engaged in the formation and maintenance of the stimulus-response association. There is a lot of work done and some interesting findings however, the manuscript can be improved by clarifying the presentation and reasoning. The inclusion of important controls will enhance the rigor of the data interpretation and conclusions.