DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.29459771.v1
title: <b>Altered cognitive processes shape tactile perception in autism.</b> (data)

description: Experimental designTo study tactile perception as well as attention and perceptual biases in autism, we developed a novel 2-Alternative Choice task for the categorization and discrimination of flutter-range vibrotactile stimuli. Throughout the text, we use terms that are preferred in the autistic community and are less stigmatizing (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021).Ethical statementAll experimental procedures were performed in accordance with the EU directive 2010/63/EU and French law following procedures approved by the Bordeaux Ethics Committee and Ministry for Higher Education and Research. Mice were maintained in reversed light cycle under controlled conditions (temperature 22–24 °C, humidity 40–60%, 12 h/12 h light/dark cycle, light on at 21:00) in a conventional animal facility with <i>ad libitum</i> access to food and <i>ad libitum</i> access to water before the water restriction period. All experiments were performed during the dark cycle, under red light.MiceSecond-generation <i>Fmr1</i> knockout (<i>Fmr1</i><sup>−/y</sup>) and wild-type littermate mice 5-16 weeks old were used in our study. Mice were maintained in a C57Bl/6 J background (Mientjes et al., 2006). Male wild-type and <i>Fmr1</i><sup><em>–/y</em></sup> littermates were generated by crossing <i>Fmr1</i><sup>+/−</sup> females with <i>Fmr1</i><sup>+/y</sup> male mice from the same production, and the resulting progeny used for our experiments was either <i>Fmr1</i><sup>+/y</sup> (wild type) or <i>Fmr1</i><sup><em>–/y</em></sup> (KO). Mice were maintained in collective cages following weaning (2-4 litter males per cage). Cages were balanced for genotype and supplemented with cotton nestlets and carton tubes.The perceptual decision-making data were collected from 5 different cohorts of mice at different time-points during their active phase of the day. Mice of both genotypes were littermates and represented in each cohort. The number of mice is provided in the figure captions. The experimenter was blind to the animals’ genotypes throughout the experiment. The genotype of experimental animals was re-confirmed post hoc by tail-PCR.2-Alternative Choice taskSetupThe vibrotactile decision-making setup was positioned in an isolation cubicle to minimize interference during the experiment. Mice were placed in a body tube and were head-fixed with their forepaws resting on two steel bars (6 mm diameter, Thorlabs). The right bar was mounted to a Preloaded Piezo Actuator (P-841.6, Physik Instrumente) equipped with a strain gauge feedback sensor and controlled (E-501, Physik Instrumente) in a closed loop, as described before (Prsa et al., 2019). Water reward was delivered through either of the two metal feeding needles (20G, 1,9mm tip, <b>Agntho's AB</b>), placed left and right of the mouse’s mouth, each connected to a lickport interface with a solenoid valve (Sanworks) equipped with a capacitive sensor (https://github.com/poulet-lab/Bpod_CapacitivePortInterface). The perceptual decision-making setup was controlled by Bpod (Sanworks) through scripts in Python (PyBpod, https://pybpod.readthedocs.io/en/latest/). The lickport interface (Sanworks) was equipped with a capacitive sensor (https://github.com/poulet-lab/Bpod_CapacitivePortInterface).<br>Habituation to head-fixation and water restrictionMice (P40-P50) were handled using carton tubes and the cupping technique until they were comfortable in the experimenter’s hands, attested by eating while handled. Mice were gradually habituated to the experimental setup and head fixation for 5 days. The third day of habituation, a water-restriction protocol was implemented, where mice had access to liquid water in the setup and to a solid water supplement (Hydrogel, BioServices) in their home cage. In total, the animals received 1.5-2 ml of water per day, which corresponds to 50-65% of their ad libitum consumption, while ensuring that they did not lose more than 10% of their weight. Each mouse received 6-8 g of Hydrogel (<i>ad libitum</i>) during the weekend. This water restriction protocol was maintained throughout behavioral training and until the end of behavioral testing.2-Alternative Choice task training and testingHabituated mice (8 weeks old) were trained to associate high- (26 μm) and low-salience (12 μm) vibrotactile stimuli (pure sinusoid, 500 ms duration, 40 Hz frequency) with a water reward (8 µl) at the right- or left-placed lickport of the setup, respectively. All trials consisted of stimulus delivery followed by a 2 s response window during which the mice could lick to receive the reward. Inter-trial intervals were variable (5-10 s). Training was subdivided in 4 phases: (a) automatic water delivery at the beginning of the response window at the corresponding lickport (left for 12 μm stimuli, right for 26 μm stimuli). (b) Training in blocks: lick-triggered water delivery during blocks of 20 trials with the same vibrotactile stimulus, of either 12 μm or 26 μm amplitude. Licking at the wrong port resulted in 5 s timeout. (c) Training with pseudorandomly delivered high- and low-salience trials: lick-triggered water delivery following pseudorandom delivery of 12 μm or 26 μm amplitude stimuli. Licking at the wrong port resulted in 5 s timeout.<br>All sessions consisted of 200-300 trials with a 1:1 ratio of high and low-salience stimuli. During training, this ratio was modified when an animal showed consistent bias for one of the two lickports. Pilot experiments with an extra sensor to monitor forepaw placement confirmed that the mice did not remove their forepaws from the bar before stimulus delivery. To complete training in blocks, mice needed to perform with 70% correct choices and 30% incorrect choices for both stimulus amplitudes. To complete training with pseudorandomly delivered high- and low-salience trials, mice needed to reach the criterion of more than 70% correct choices and less than 30% incorrect choices as an average for 3 consecutive days. All mice that fulfilled this criterion were tested for the categorization/discrimination of vibrotactile stimuli. During testing, stimuli (pure sinusoid, 500 ms duration, 40 Hz frequency) were delivered in a pseudorandom manner with a 50% High-salience: 50% Low-salience ratio. Amplitudes varied on a range between 12 μm and 26 μm. Stimuli of 20, 22, 24 and 26 μm were considered high-salience stimuli and rewarded at the right lickport while stimuli of 12, 14, 16 and 18 μm were considered as low-salience stimuli and rewarded at the left lickport.<br>2-Alternative choice vibrotactile task analysisAll analysis was performed with custom-made Python scripts that can be available upon request. Behavior was quantified based on the lick events and three main outcomes were measured for each stimulus salience: Correct choice rate (number of correct licks divided by the total number of high- or low-salience trials), Incorrect choice rate (number of wrong licks divided by the total number of high- or low-salience trials), and Missed stimuli rate (number of trials in which the animal did not lick, divided by the total number of high- or low-salience trials). Training duration was calculated based on the total number of days each animal passed in training in blocks and with pseudorandom stimulus delivery. For testing, only sessions with more than 70% correct choices for the training stimuli (12 μm and 26 μm) were analyzed. Psychometric curves were fitted on the rightwards lick rate for each stimulus amplitude using a general linear model. An average of 84 repetitions for each amplitude was used to calculate rightwards lick rates.Categorization thresholds were calculated based on the psychometric curves, as the stimulus amplitude at the inflection point of the sigmoid fitting curve. Categorization accuracy was calculated based on the slope of the psychometric curve.Based on the signal detection theory (Detection Theory,(Hautus, M.J., Macmillan, N.A., & Creelman, 2021)), sensitivity d’ was calculated as:<i>d' =</i><i>z(Correct choice rate) - z(Incorrect choice rate)</i>Sensitivity d’ for high- and low-salience stimuli was calculated based on the Correct and Incorrect choice rate for high- and low-salience stimuli respectively.The strategy of the animals was assessed through their criterion, which was calculated as:<i>c = d’(high)- d’(low).</i>Prior choice impact was calculated separately for each type of the current trial (high- or low-salience). For low-salience trials the prior choice impact was calculated as the rate of correct low and incorrect-low trials, divided by the rate of all correct and all incorrect trials. Similarly, for high-salience trials the prior choice impact was calculated as the rate of correct high and incorrect-high trials, divided by the rate of all correct and all incorrect trials.