Author Response: A Functional Topography Within the Cholinergic Basal Forebrain for Encoding Sensory Cues and Behavioral Reinforcement Outcomes
Blaise Robert,Eyal Y. Kimchi,Yurika Watanabe,Tatenda Chakoma,Miao Jing,Yulong Li,Daniel B. Polley
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.69514.sa2
2021-01-01
Abstract:Article Figures and data Abstract Editor's evaluation Introduction Results Discussion Materials and methods Data availability References Decision letter Author response Article and author information Metrics Abstract Basal forebrain cholinergic neurons (BFCNs) project throughout the cortex to regulate arousal, stimulus salience, plasticity, and learning. Although often treated as a monolithic structure, the basal forebrain features distinct connectivity along its rostrocaudal axis that could impart regional differences in BFCN processing. Here, we performed simultaneous bulk calcium imaging from rostral and caudal BFCNs over a 1-month period of variable reinforcement learning in mice. BFCNs in both regions showed equivalently weak responses to unconditioned visual stimuli and anticipated rewards. Rostral BFCNs in the horizontal limb of the diagonal band were more responsive to reward omission, more accurately classified behavioral outcomes, and more closely tracked fluctuations in pupil-indexed global brain state. Caudal tail BFCNs in globus pallidus and substantia innominata were more responsive to unconditioned auditory stimuli, orofacial movements, aversive reinforcement, and showed robust associative plasticity for punishment-predicting cues. These results identify a functional topography that diversifies cholinergic modulatory signals broadcast to downstream brain regions. Editor's evaluation Cholinergic projections from the basal forebrain throughout the cortex are known to regulate arousal, signal transmission and plasticity. The basal forebrain shows distinct connectivity with the cortex along its anteroposterior axis that could entail distinct modulation of different parts of cortex. By performing long-term imaging of anterior and posterior basal forebrain activity during reinforcement learning, this study finds distinct reward, learning and sensory correlates of anterior and posterior basal forebrain activity, demonstrating that the cholinergic modulation of downstream cortical areas exhibits a functional topography. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.69514.sa0 Decision letter Reviews on Sciety eLife's review process Introduction Basal forebrain projections innervate the neocortex, hippocampus, and amygdala to regulate stimulus salience and global brain state across a wide range of timescales (for recent reviews, see Disney and Higley, 2020; Monosov, 2020; Sarter and Lustig, 2020). The basal forebrain is not a monolithic structure, but rather a constellation of discrete brain areas that feature distinct combinations of neurochemical cell types and distinct arrangements of afferent and efferent connections (Gielow and Zaborszky, 2017; Li et al., 2018; Rye et al., 1984; Zaborszky et al., 2012). Any single region of the basal forebrain is composed of glutamatergic, GABAergic, and cholinergic neurons, which can each exhibit distinct downstream targeting and functional response properties (Do et al., 2016; Laszlovszky et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2017). As a whole, the basal forebrain is understood to contribute to learning, memory, attention, arousal, and neurodegenerative disease processes (Everitt and Robbins, 1997; Monosov, 2020; Zaborszky et al., 2012). However, the heterogeneity of cell types and projection targets have made it challenging to identify specific computations or specialized feature processing performed by ‘the’ basal forebrain, underscoring the need for cell type-specific recordings from targeted regions in task-engaged animals. Basal forebrain cholinergic neurons (BFCNs), though numerically the rarest major neurochemical class of basal forebrain neuron (Gritti et al., 2006), are by far the most extensively studied. In rats and mice, where cholinergic neurons can be accessed for tracing, monitoring, and manipulation with transgenic approaches, BFCNs exhibit distinct arrangements of afferent and efferent connections along the extended rostrocaudal axis (Gielow and Zaborszky, 2017). BFCNs in rostral structures such as the horizontal limb of the diagonal band of Broca (HDB) feature strong reciprocal connectivity with prefrontal cortex and lateral hypothalamus, with additional projections to entorhinal cortex, olfactory bulb, and pyriform cortex (Bloem et al., 2014; Gielow and Zaborszky, 2017; Li et al., 2018; Rye et al., 1984; Zaborszky et al., 2012; Figure 1A). By contrast, BFCNs at the caudal tail of the basal forebrain, at the intersection of globus pallidus and substantia innominata (GP/SI), receive strong inputs from the caudate putamen, the medial geniculate, and posterior intrathalamic nuclei, and are the primary source of cholinergic input to the auditory cortex (ACtx), with comparatively weak projections to frontal cortical areas (Chavez and Zaborszky, 2017; Guo et al., 2019; Kamke et al., 2005; Kim et al., 2016; Rye et al., 1984; Zaborszky et al., 2012). Figure 1 with 1 supplement see all Download asset Open asset Bulk basal forebrain cholinergic neuron (BFCN) activity and cortical acetylcholine release closely correspond with pupil-indexed global brain state. (A) Mid-sagittal diagram of the mouse brain depicting the diversity in major inputs (gray) and outputs (colored) between a rostroventral basal forebrain structure, the horizontal limb of the diagonal band of Broca (HDB), and the caudodorsal tail of the basal forebrain, the boundary of the globus pallidus and substantia innominata (GP/SI). ACtx = auditory cortex, MGm = medial subdivision of the medial geniculate body, LHT = lateral hypothalamus, Amy = amygdala, LS = lateral septum, CP = caudate putamen, PFC = prefrontal cortex. (B) Dual bulk fiber-based calcium imaging from basal forebrain cholinergic neurons was performed from the HDB and GP/SI of ChAT-Cre-Δneo × Ai148 mice. Dual wavelength imaging allowed separate visualization of calcium-independent fluorescence (405 nm) from calcium-dependent fluorescence (465 nm). Vertical and horizontal scale bars reflect 1% DF/F and 5 s, respectively. (C) Coronal diagrams are adapted from the adult mouse coronal reference atlas created by the Allen Institute for Brain Science. Diagrams illustrate anatomical landmarks at the rostral (top) and caudal (bottom) imaging locations. Post-mortem fluorescence photomicrographs of brain sections immunolabeled for the ChAT protein depict the outline of the fiber path and the position of HDB, GP, and SI. GCaMP and ChAT fluorescence channels and their overlay to illustrate the strong co-localization of GCaMP in ChAT neurons within HDB and GP/SI regions near the fiber tip. Scale bar = 0.5 mm. (D) Cells from regions of interest below the fiber tip were counted based on their expression of GCaMP-only (green), ChAT-only (magenta), or both GCaMP and ChAT (lavender). The same analysis was performed on cells within the caudate putamen of the dorsal striatrum. Numbers indicate the number of neurons in the corresponding category. (E) Isoluminous spontaneous pupil dilations in an example mouse were visualized in combination with GCaMP imaging from HDB and GP/SI. Pupil scale bar depicts a five pixel2 areal change. (F) Mean ± SEM coherence of HDB and GP/SI GCaMP activity with pupil-indexed brain state in isoluminous conditions without any explicit environmental stimuli or task demands. N = 7 mice provided data for pupil, HDB, and GP/SI. Basal forebrain GCaMP signals closely track slow (<0.5 Hz) changes in pupil diameter, though the correspondence is stronger overall in HDB than in GP/SI (two-way repeated measures ANOVA, main effect for brain structure, F = 12.58, p = 0.01). (G) HDB and GP/SI GCaMP changes lead pupil fluctuations by approximately 0.7 s. Inset: Cross-correlation of the HDB and GP/SI GCaMP signals with pupil fluctuations. Individual data points depict the time value corresponding to the peak of the cross-correlograms from individual mice. Mean ± SEM values are provided at left and right. (H) Tapered fiber imaging of the ACh3.0 fluorescence during pupil videography. Scale bar depicts a five pixel diameter change. (I) Mean ± SEM coherence of ACtx ACh3.0 with pupil-indexed arousal in isoluminous conditions without any explicit environmental stimuli or task demands. N = 10 mice. Pupil coherence was qualitatively similar to GP/SI GCaMP coherence, which is expected on account of its stronger anatomical projection to ACtx. (J) ACtx ACh3.0 changes lead pupil fluctuations by approximately 0.6 s. Inset: Cross-correlation of the ACtx ACh3.0 signal with pupil fluctuations. Individual data points depict the time value corresponding to the peak of the cross-correlograms from individual mice. Mean ± SEM values are provided at left and right. Figure 1—source data 1 Counts of GCaMP-expressing and ChAT-expressing cells in horizontal limb of the diagonal band of Broca (HDB), globus pallidus and substantia innominata (GP/SI), and the rostral and caudal caudate putamen. https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/69514/elife-69514-fig1-data1-v2.xlsx Download elife-69514-fig1-data1-v2.xlsx Although rostral and caudal BFCNs are wired into distinct anatomical networks, the suggestion is that they broadcast a relatively unified signal to downstream brain areas. The evidence for this conclusion primarily comes from two types of measurements. First, there are many converging reports of strong, short-latency BFCN responses to aversive stimuli such as air puffs or foot shock whether recordings are made from HDB (Hangya et al., 2015; Harrison et al., 2016; Laszlovszky et al., 2020; Sturgill et al., 2020), from the caudal extreme of the basal forebrain, GP/SI (Guo et al., 2019), or from an intermediate region of rodent SI often labeled as nucleus basalis (Hangya et al., 2015; Laszlovszky et al., 2020; Letzkus et al., 2011). Second, cortical fluorescence imaging of genetically encoded acetylcholine (ACh) sensors or calcium signals in BFCN axons have demonstrated a strong correspondence between cholinergic activity and behavioral indices of global arousal, as determined from EEG markers, isoluminous pupil diameter changes, and gross motor markers such as grooming or locomotion (ACh sensor imaging – Lohani et al., 2021; Teles-Grilo Ruivo et al., 2017; calcium imaging for HDB – Harrison et al., 2016; Sturgill et al., 2020; nucleus basalis – Reimer et al., 2016; GP/SI – Nelson and Mooney, 2016). On the other hand, there are many inconsistencies in the emerging BFCN literature. These discrepancies could reflect differences in the anatomical source of BFCN activity, or they could arise from differences in mouse lines, behavioral task designs, and measurement techniques. For example, auditory cue-evoked BFCN responses have been described as absent altogether (Hangya et al., 2015), observed only for reward-predictive sounds (Crouse et al., 2020; Harrison et al., 2016; Kuchibhotla et al., 2017; Parikh et al., 2007), or enhanced after reinforcement learning but present even for unconditioned stimuli (Guo et al., 2019). Similarly, behavioral accuracy in discrimination tasks have been classified from BFCN activity both preceding and following the sensory cue (Kuchibhotla et al., 2017; Parikh et al., 2007), only from the post-cue response period (Laszlovszky et al., 2020; Sturgill et al., 2020), or only from putative non-cholinergic cell types (Hangya et al., 2015; Lin and Nicolelis, 2008). Reward-evoked BFCN activity has been described as weak overall (Crouse et al., 2020; Harrison et al., 2016; Parikh et al., 2007) or rapid and quite strong, particularly for uncertain rewards (Hangya et al., 2015; Laszlovszky et al., 2020; Sturgill et al., 2020; Teles-Grilo Ruivo et al., 2017). Finally, the relationship between BFCN activity and movement is unclear, with variable reports of strong recruitment by orofacial movements or locomotion occurring outside of a behavioral task (Harrison et al., 2016; Nelson and Mooney, 2016), strong only for movements associated with reinforcement (Crouse et al., 2020), or absent, whether movements were linked to reinforcement or not (Hangya et al., 2015; Parikh et al., 2007). In fact, while mesoscale imaging from the entire dorsal surface of the mouse neocortex was recently used to confirm an overall strong association between motor activity, global brain state, and ACh release, the findings also emphasized clear differences between behavioral states and spatiotemporal ACh dynamics, again suggesting functional heterogeneity in the sources of cholinergic input innervating anterior and posterior cortical regions (Lohani et al., 2021). To better understand whether the disparate findings described above may reflect regional specializations for processing sensory and reinforcement signals within the cholinergic basal forebrain, we developed an approach to minimize inter-subject variation by testing all of the experimental features mentioned above in individual mice while making simultaneous fiber-based bulk GCaMP recordings from BFCNs in HDB and GP/SI. For some variables, we observed closely matched responses in rostral and caudal regions, suggesting a common output that would be broadcast to downstream brain regions. For example, both HDB and GP/SI exhibited equivalently weak overall responses to unconditioned visual stimuli and anticipated rewards. For other measures, we noted clear differences between BFCN activity in each region: HDB exhibited a comparatively strong association with pupil-indexed brain state, behavioral trial outcome, and with the omission of expected rewards. Response amplitudes for aversive stimuli were larger in GP/SI, as were responses to orofacial movements, unconditioned auditory stimuli, and learning-related enhancement of punishment-predicting auditory cues. These findings identify a coarse functional topography within the cholinergic basal forebrain that can be interpreted in light of the distinct connectivity of each region and will motivate future hypotheses about the causal involvement of each region in brain function and behavior. Results A transgenic strategy for selective GCaMP expression in HDB and GP/SI BFCNs To characterize regional specializations within the cholinergic basal forebrain across a wide range of task-related variables, we performed dual fiber imaging from HDB and GP/SI in the right hemisphere of Chat-Cre mice that were crossed to the GCaMP6f reporter line, Ai148 (Figure 1B–C). Using cre-expressing mice for functional characterization of cholinergic neurons can be challenging. ChAT(BAC)-Cre and ChAT(IRES)-Cre homozygous mice exhibit behavioral irregularities that can be avoided by using ChAT(IRES)-Cre hemizygous littermates (Chen et al., 2018). Ectopic expression in glia and non-cholinergic neurons can also be a problem, even in popular ChAT(IRES)-Cre lines, either because the presence of a frt-flanked neo cassette can result in off-target expression, or because a fraction of glutamatergic neurons express ChAT transiently during development and would therefore still be labeled with Cre-based transgenic expression approaches (Nasirova et al., 2020). Here, we used hemizygous offspring from the ChAT(IRES)-CreΔneo line, in which the neo cassette is removed to reduce ectopic expression (Nasirova et al., 2020). We confirmed that GCaMP expression was almost entirely restricted to cholinergic neurons within the HDB and GP/SI by immunolabeling regions near the end of the fiber tips for ChAT in a subset of implanted mice (N = 4, see Figure 1—figure supplement 1 for a presentation of all 22 fiber tip locations in 11 mice). ChAT-negative neurons that expressed GCaMP were rare, amounting to just 95/1719 in HDB (5.5%) and 48/764 in GP/SI (6.3%) (Figure 1D, left). As identified in prior studies, we observed aberrant expression in brain regions outside of the basal forebrain, including both the near-complete absence of GCaMP expression in ChAT+ striatal interneurons (Figure 1D, right) but also ectopic expression of GCaMP in ChAT-negative cells in neocortex and hippocampus. Therefore, while our transgenic strategy was appropriate for bulk imaging from cholinergic neurons in HDB and GP/SI cholinergic neurons (and in fact was aided by the absence of striatal GCaMP expression), it would not necessarily be a valid strategy for the study of other brain regions. Strong coherence between pupil-indexed arousal and cholinergic activity Basal forebrain neurons have a well-established role in regulating global brain state (Buzsaki et al., 1988; Kim et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2017). The cholinergic basal forebrain, in particular, is a key regulator of neocortical excitability across sleep states as well as levels of vigilance during quiescent awake states (Buzsaki et al., 1988; Everitt and Robbins, 1997; McGinley et al., 2015b; Reimer et al., 2016; Teles-Grilo Ruivo et al., 2017). Under isoluminous lighting conditions, pupil diameter provides a sensitive index of arousal and has been shown to co-vary with GCaMP activity measured in cholinergic basal forebrain axon fields within the neocortex (Nelson and Mooney, 2016; Reimer et al., 2016). Prior measurements were either made in ChAT-Cre× GCaMP reporter lines or via relatively large viral solution injection quantities (0.4–1 μL), which leaves unresolved the question of how the activity of cholinergic neurons in specific regions of the basal forebrain corresponds to pupil-indexed arousal state. To address this point, we simultaneously monitored spontaneous pupil fluctuations alongside fiber-based GCaMP imaging from HDB and GP/SI. We observed a striking correspondence between spontaneous pupil dilations and slow fluctuations in GCaMP signal amplitudes in both regions of the cholinergic basal forebrain (Figure 1E). GCaMP coherence with pupil fluctuations was significantly higher in HDB than GP/SI, where bulk calcium dynamics could account for as much as 80% of the variability in slow pupil changes (Figure 1F, statistical reporting provided in figure legends). The timing of correlated GCaMP transients and pupil dilations were similar across brain areas, where GCaMP signals led pupil dilations by approximately 0.7 s (Figure 1G). One of the underlying assumptions in our approach is that bulk calcium imaging from ChAT-Cre neurons in the basal forebrain is a useful way to measure the suprathreshold activity of local BFCNs and infer the timing of ACh release in downstream targets. For example, based on the correspondence between basal forebrain bulk GCaMP levels and pupil diameter, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that ACh levels also co-vary with pupil dilations with a similar coherence. HDB and GP/SI BFCNs both project to ACtx, although BFCN → ACtx projections are far more numerous in GP/SI than HDB (Chavez and Zaborszky, 2017; Guo et al., 2019; Kamke et al., 2005; Rye et al., 1984). To monitor ACh dynamics in ACtx related to pupil fluctuations, we expressed the genetically encoded ACh fluorescent sensor, GRABACh3.0 (ACh3.0), in ACtx neurons and monitored fluorescence dynamic with tapered optical fibers (Figure 1H; Jing et al., 2020; Pisano et al., 2019). As expected, coherence between ACtx ACh3.0 fluorescence and pupil fluctuations strongly resembled GCaMP coherence from GP/SI cell bodies, both in terms of the strong coherence with slow (<0.1 Hz) changes in pupil diameter (Figure 1I) and in terms of timing, where ACh3.0 signal surges led pupil dilations by approximately 0.6 s (Figure 1J). These findings validate our use of bulk fiber-based calcium imaging in the GCaMP reporter line as a useful way to monitor cholinergic basal forebrain activity and additionally demonstrate a strong correspondence between pupil-indexed arousal and activity surges in HDB and – to a lesser extent – GP/SI. Audiovisual stimulus encoding and habituation across the cholinergic basal forebrain Having confirmed that our dual fiber bulk GCaMP imaging approach could capture the expected relationship between pupil-indexed brain state and cortical ACh levels, we next tested regional variations in BFCN responses for passively presented unconditioned auditory and visual stimuli that had no explicit behavioral significance (Figure 2A). As illustrated in an example mouse, presentation of novel – but behaviorally irrelevant – drifting visual gratings elicited weak responses from both regions. Auditory spectrotemporal gratings (i.e., ripples) elicited comparable responses in HDB but robust responses in GP/SI even at the lowest sound levels tested (Figure 2B). Quantification of visual- and sound-evoked responses across all mice (N = 11) confirmed modest bulk BFCN responses to visual gratings of varying contrast that did not differ significantly between HDB and GP/SI (Figure 2C, top). BFCN responses to unconditioned auditory stimuli were markedly different than visual stimuli, as observed for both complex broadband ripple sounds (Figure 2C, middle) and brief pure tone pips (Figure 2C, bottom). In GP/SI, significant BFCN responses were observed for both types of sounds at all stimulus intensities and were all significantly greater than the corresponding HDB responses. Figure 2 with 2 supplements see all Download asset Open asset Strong, rapidly habituating responses to unconditioned auditory - but not visual – stimuli in globus pallidus and substantia innominata (GP/SI) cholinergic neurons. (A) Timeline for measurement sessions (black text) and procedures (gray text) performed in each of 11 ChAT-Cre-Δneo × Ai148 mice. Basal forebrain cholinergic neuron (BFCN) responses to unconditioned auditory and visual stimuli described below were measured during test session 2. (B) BFCN responses to drifting visual gratings of varying contrast (left) and auditory spectrotemporal ripples of varying sound levels (right) are shown for an example mouse. Heatmaps depict fractional change values for individual trials in horizontal limb of the diagonal band of Broca (HDB) (top row) and GP/SI (bottom row). Line plots depict mean ± SEM z-scored fractional change across all trials. Vertical bars denote onset and offset of the 2 s stimulus period. (C) Evoked response amplitudes to auditory and visual stimuli in HDB (left column) and GP/SI (right column). Circles denote individual mice (N = 11 for all conditions), bars denote sample mean and SEM sensory response amplitudes. Responses at variable stimulus intensities are averaged across horizontal/vertical visual orientations (top), upward and downward auditory frequency modulation (middle), and low, middle, and high auditory pure tone frequencies (bottom). Refer to Figure 2—figure supplement 1 for a comparison of responses to each direction of visual and auditory stimulus change. Sensory-evoked cholinergic responses to visual gratings and auditory ripples increase with intensity and contrast, but are stronger overall in GP/SI, particularly in the auditory modality (three-way repeated measures ANOVA with structure, stimulus level, and modality as independent variables: main effect for structure, F = 10.09, p = 0.01; main effect for stimulus level, F = 63.52, p = 2 × 10–9; main effect for modality, F = 20.83, p = 0.001; modality × structure × level interaction term, F = 9.1, p = 0.002). Asterisks denote a significant difference in the peak post- and pre-stimulus response (paired t-test, p < 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons). Black and gray horizontal bars denote significant and non-significant differences, respectively, in sensory-evoked response amplitudes between HDB and GP/SI (paired t-test, p < 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons). (D) Mean ± SEM normalized pupil dilations evoked by 70 dB SPL auditory ripples significantly decreased over 20 presentations (one-way repeated measures ANOVA, F = 2.85, p = 0.0003; N = 7 mice). Inset: Mean sound-evoked pupil diameter change in an example mouse for trials 1–3 vs. 11–20. Inset scale bar = 1 z-score and 2 s and applies to all inset panels below. Vertical dashed line = onset of the 2 s stimulus. (E) Mean ± SEM normalized BFCN response to auditory ripples were significantly and equivalently reduced in HDB and GP/SI over 20 presentations (two-way repeated measures ANOVA with structure and presentation number as independent variables: main effect for structure, F = 0.51, p = 0.49; main effect for presentation number, F = 6.11, p = 5 × 10–12; N = 11 mice). Insets: Mean response from an HDB fiber of an example mouse for trials 1–3 vs. 11–20. Figure 2—figure supplement 2 presents habituation functions for other auditory and visual stimulus types at varying stimulus intensities. (F) Mean ± SEM normalized BFCN spontaneous GCaMP transient amplitudes did not change over 20 measurement blocks (two-way repeated measures ANOVA with structure and presentation number as independent variables: main effect for structure, F = 0.80, p = 0.70; presentation number × structure interaction term, F = 0.57, p = 0.93; N = 11 mice). Insets: Spontaneous transients from an HDB fiber in two trials for which no stimulus was presented. To better understand how modest HDB and robust GP/SI responses to broadband auditory ripples related to stimulus novelty and stimulus-elicited arousal, we returned to an analysis of pupil dilations, which can be elicited by sounds that are novel, emotionally evocative, or require heightened listening effort (Ebitz and Moore, 2018; McGinley et al., 2015b; Zekveld et al., 2018). Along these lines, we observed large pupil dilations to the first presentation of an auditory ripple at 70 dB SPL, which then habituated to approximately 50% of their initial amplitude after one or two trials, presumably reflecting the loss of stimulus novelty (Figure 2D). Ripple-evoked BFCN responses decayed in parallel with pupil responses, where responses decreased by approximately 30% after the first presentation before stabilizing at approximately 60% of the initial amplitude across subsequent presentations. Although the ripple-evoked response amplitude was greater overall in GP/SI than HDB, the proportional decay with habituation was equivalent (Figure 2E). Rapid habituation of BFCN responses was also observed for auditory ripples presented at lower sound levels, visual gratings at lower contrast, and for moderate intensity pure tones, providing further evidence that BFCN sensory responses were modulated stimulus novelty across a wide range of physical stimulus types (Figure 2—figure supplement 2). Finally, to control for the possibility that the progressive response decay reflected photobleaching of the sample or another source of measurement noise, we also quantified the amplitude of spontaneous GCaMP transients measured during trials in which neither auditory nor visual stimuli were presented. We found that the amplitude of spontaneous GCaMP transients was unchanged throughout the recording period, confirming that the reduced sensory-evoked GCaMP responses over the test session reflected habituation to stimulus novelty (Figure 2F). Stable BFCN responses to reward-predicting cues Prior studies have described enhanced BFCN responses to sensory cues associated with reward (Crouse et al., 2020; Harrison et al., 2016; Kuchibhotla et al., 2017; Parikh et al., 2007) and co-modulation of BFCN activity rates with behavioral performance accuracy in sensory detection and recognition tasks (Kuchibhotla et al., 2017; Laszlovszky et al., 2020; Parikh et al., 2007; Sturgill et al., 2020). To determine how BFCN activity dynamics related to appetitive learning and task performance, we conditioned mice to lick a delivery spout shortly following the onset of a tone to receive a sugar water reward (Figure 3A). To temporally separate the cue, operant motor response, and reinforcement timing, the reward was delayed until mice produced an extended, vigorous bout of licking (≥7 licks in 2.8 s). Although the rates of procedural learning varied somewhat between mice (Figure 3B), all mice learned the task within a few sessions and either detected the tone to receive reward (hit) or failed to lick at all in response to the tone (miss), with very few instances of partial hits (>0 but <7 licks in 2.8 s) observed after the first few behavioral sessions (Figure 3C). Figure 3 with 1 supplement see all Download asset Open asset Pre-stimulus cholinergic basal forebrain activity distinguishes behavioral hit and miss trials during an auditory detection task. (A) Mice were rewarded for producing a vigorous bout of licking (at least 7 licks in 2.8 s) shortly after a low-, mid-, or high-frequency tone. (B) Learning curves from four example mice that became competent in the detection task at slightly different rates. (C) Mean ± SEM probability of hit, partial hit, and miss trial outcome as fraction of training completed in N = 11 mice. (D–E) Tone-evoked cholinergic GCaMP responses from the horizontal limb of the diagonal band of Broca (HDB) (D) and globus pallidus and substantia innominata (GP/SI) (E) of a single mouse from 717 hit and 148 miss trials distributed over eight appetitive conditioning sessions. Left columns present the timing of lickspout activity, reward probability, heatmaps single trial fractional change values, and mean ± SEM fractional change values. Right columns present the same data on miss trials. Horizontal black lines in heatmaps denote different daily recording sessions. Vertical lines denote tone onset. (F–G) Plotting conventions match D–E, except that data are averaged across all mice (N = 11) and the first third of training trials (early) are plotted separately from the last third of training trials (late). Training-related changes in the sensory-evoked responses were not observed, though see Figure 3—figure supplement 1 for an analysis of small differences in the sustained response. (H) Mean ± SEM sound-evoked response amplitudes in all 11 mice were calculated by subtracting the mean activity during a 2 s pre-stimulus baseline period from the peak of activit