The Role of the Ventral Dentate Gyrus in Learned Approach-
Avoidance Conflict Resolution
by
Dylan CM Yeates
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements
for the degree of Master of Arts
Graduate Department of Psychology
University of Toronto
© Copyright by Dylan Yeates 2017
ii
The Role of the Ventral Dentate Gyrus in Approach-Avoidance Conflict Resolution
Dylan Yeates
Master of Arts
Graduate Department of Psychology
University of Toronto
2017
Abstract
Approach-avoidance conflicts occur when organisms face stimuli linked to opposing affective
outcomes, and must choose to either engage or disengage. It is increasingly acknowledged that
the hippocampus, particularly its ventral aspect, is part of a critical network involved in
recognizing and resolving approach-avoidance conflicts. Less is known about how the ventral
hippocampus’ subdivisions along its transverse axis mediate affective conflicts. Using transient
pharmacological lesions in Long-Evans rats, the present study observed that temporary
inactivation of the ventral dentate gyrus resulted in an increased bias towards approaching
affectively conflicting information, despite also being associated with aversive outcomes. Further
testing showed that this could not be explained by an increased bias towards either positive or
negative information alone, and was only observed when the conflicting stimuli were presented
together. These findings suggest that the ventral dentate gyrus is a critical actor in resolving
learned approach-avoidance conflicts.
iii
Acknowledgments
This thesis was the result of an entire community, not just one person. I would first and
foremost like to thank Dr. Rutsuko Ito and Dr. Andy Lee for their guidance, encouragement and
genuine support throughout this whole bumpy process; I feel genuinely lucky to have found my
way to them. I would also like to thank Dr. Junchul Kim for his participation on my master’s
thesis committee and insightful discussion.
I must thank Dr. Anett Schumacher for her extensive help throughout every step of this
experiment, David Nguyen for at least attempting to teach me his magic touch when it comes to
animal training, Laurie Hamel and Christina Gizzo for teaching me the quirks of our radial maze
room, Bilgehan Cavdaroglu for always being available to talk statistics, and Sadia Riaz for being
there when the ear bars just would not go in properly during surgery. Special thanks to Dean
Carcone for letting me use his thesis as a formatting cheat sheet, and Alicia Ussling, who
swooped in halfway through the experiment to assist with data collection; I could not have
finished this in time or sane without her help. I also would like to thank all my animal
participants for making the ultimate sacrifice in the name of science.
I would not be where I am today without the extensive and tireless support of my
wonderful parents. Finally, I would like to thank my tireless and loving fiancé Harveer Athwal
for sticking by me throughout this whole experience, and always believing I could do it.
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vi
Chapter 1 The Role of the Ventral Dentate Gyrus in Approach-Avoidance Conflict
Resolution ...................................................................................................................................1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Approach-Avoidance Conflict .............................................................................................1
1.2 The Function of the Hippocampus along the Dorso-Ventral Axis ......................................2
1.3 Functions of the Hippocampal Subregions ..........................................................................7
1.4 The Ventral Dentate Gyrus and Learned Approach-Avoidance Conflicts ..........................9
Methods .....................................................................................................................................10
2.1 Subjects ..............................................................................................................................10
2.2 Surgery ...............................................................................................................................10
2.3 Radial Arm Maze Apparatus .............................................................................................11
2.4 Habituation .........................................................................................................................11
2.5 BAA Y-Maze Cue Conditioning .......................................................................................12
2.6 Conditioned Cue Acquisition Test and Group Allocation .................................................13
2.7 Drug Microinfusion ...........................................................................................................13
2.8 Mixed Valence Approach-Avoidance Conflict Test..........................................................14
2.9 Novelty Detection ..............................................................................................................14
2.10 Retraining and Conditioned Cue Preference Test ..............................................................15
2.11 Elevated Plus Maze ............................................................................................................15
2.12 Metric Pattern Discrimination............................................................................................15
2.13 Locomotor test ...................................................................................................................16
2.14 Histological Procedure .......................................................................................................16
v
2.15 Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................16
Results .......................................................................................................................................17
3.1 Histological Verification ....................................................................................................17
3.2 Habituation .........................................................................................................................17
3.3 Conditioned Cue Acquisition .............................................................................................17
3.4 Mixed Valence Approach-Avoidance Conflict Test..........................................................18
3.5 Novelty Detection ..............................................................................................................18
3.6 Conditioned Preference ......................................................................................................19
3.7 Elevated Plus Maze ............................................................................................................19
3.8 Metric Pattern Detection ....................................................................................................19
3.9 Locomotion ........................................................................................................................20
4 Discussion ..............................................................................................................................20
4.1 The Ventral Dentate Gyrus is Involved in Approach-Avoidance Conflicts with
Conditioned Cues ...............................................................................................................20
4.2 The Results cannot be explained by Novelty or Pattern Separation Deficits ....................21
4.3 Inconsistent EPM Results ..................................................................................................22
4.4 Locomotion results Unexpected ........................................................................................22
Limitations and Future Directions ............................................................................................23
Figures .......................................................................................................................................26
Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................34
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Placements of injector tips. Red stars are BM infusion sites, while black crosses are
saline infusion sites. ...................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 2. Time spent in the conflict and neutral arms in the 4th habituation session. ................... 27
Figure 3. Time spent in each arm during the final cue conditioning acquisition test. .................. 27
Figure 4. Time spent in each arm during the mixed valence approach-avoidance conflict test. .. 28
Figure 5. Number of entries during mixed valence approach-avoidance conflict test ................. 28
Figure 6. Number of retreats during mixed valence approach-avoidance conflict test. ............... 29
Figure 7. Time spent in start and familiar arms during novelty habituation................................. 29
Figure 8. Time spent in familiar arms and novel arms during novelty test. ................................. 30
Figure 9. Time spent in appetitive and neural arms during final preference test. ......................... 30
Figure 10. Time spent in aversive and neural arms during final preference test. ......................... 31
Figure 11. Time spent in the open arm of elevated plus maze. .................................................... 31
Figure 12. Number of entries into the open arm of elevated plus maze. ...................................... 32
Figure 13. Combined time exploring both objects during metric pattern discrimination. ............ 32
Figure 14. Difference in time spent exploring objects in the MPD test between final test and last
training session.............................................................................................................................. 33
Figure 15. Distance travelled with each 5-min time block during locomotor test. ....................... 33
1
Chapter 1 The Role of the Ventral Dentate Gyrus in Approach-Avoidance Conflict
Resolution
Introduction
1.1 Approach-Avoidance Conflict
Animals, both human and non-human, must navigate a complex world that requires knowledge
about which objects and situations are adaptive and which are non-adaptive. By understanding
and learning about what is going to help or harm them, animals can tailor their behaviour to
approach stimuli that predict good outcomes (such as pleasurable food and safe places), and
avoid stimuli linked to bad outcomes (such as bodily harm). However, oftentimes the adaptive
value of stimuli is not simply good or bad. For a small animal like a rat, a stash of food in a
wide-open space is desirable, but approaching said food could expose the animal to predation.
This is an example of an approach-avoidance conflict, which arises when an organism is
confronted with a goal or situation that predicts both appetitive and aversive outcomes, making it
drawn towards and repelled away from the stimulus simultaneously (McNaughton & Corr,
2014). It is thought that abnormal approach-avoidance conflict resolution is involved in many
clinical disorders, particularly anxiety.
Initially, behaviours associated with approach-avoidance conflicts were thought to simply result
from the combination and mixing of approach and avoidance behaviours (McNaughton, 2011).
However, further investigations found that under conflict conditions, laboratory animals adopt
specific behaviours that cannot be explained by the linear mixing of approach and avoidance
systems, such as an increase in vigilance (Hinde, 1966). These behaviours were later found to be
attenuated when extensive lesions to the hippocampus (HPC) were made, as well as when
clinically effective anti-anxiety medications were given, leading to a hippocampal theory of
approach-avoidance conflict resolution and anxiety (Gray & Mcnaughton, 2000).
While much of the work on the hippocampus has focused on its role in memory, recently more
attention has been paid to its role in affective processes. Damage to the ventral hippocampus
(vHPC) in animals has been found to blunt the expression of anxiety in situations that naturally
2
evoke it, while leaving spatial memory relatively untouched (Moser & Moser, 1998) indicating
the presence of dissociable functions along the longitudinal axis (Strange, Witter, Lein, & Moser,
2014). These tests, which typically include the elevated plus maze (EPM) and open field (OF),
can be considered forms of approach-avoidance conflicts, which require the animal to balance an
innate drive leading to approach (the desire to explore novel environments) with an innate drive
leading to avoidance (caution of places where harm is a possibility). Further studies found that
approach-avoidance conflicts brought about by contrasting conditioned cues also recruit the
vHPC, as indicated by abnormally high approaches towards conflict stimuli when the brain
region is damaged (Schumacher, Vlassov, & Ito, 2016).
While the increased interest in the vHPC and its role in affective processes has lead to significant
progress in our understanding of the region, much is still unknown, such as if the subfields of the
region play specialized roles in approach-avoidance conflict resolution, how the inputs to the
vHPC are transformed along the transverse axis, and how these processes are related to what is
known about the dorsal hippocampus (dHPC). This study examined the role that a prominent
region of the vHPC, the ventral dentate gyrus (vDG), has in resolving approach-avoidance
conflicts. This thesis will begin by reviewing the literature surrounding the HPC, its anatomical
subregions, and its functional properties regarding spatial and mnemonic processing, before
examining the specific roles that the vHPC plays in affective processes. It will then look at the
specific role the vDG plays in approach-avoidance conflict resolution and other paradigms the
region is suspected to be involved in, based on existing literature. This study found that in the
absence of vDG activity animals display abnormal behaviour in an approach-avoidance conflict
with conditioned stimuli. Furthermore, the results cannot be explained by abnormal novelty
processing, spatial pattern separation, or processing of learned valences alone. Given the
anatomical connections and important functional role the dentate gyrus has in general
hippocampal function, the outcome of this study suggests the vDG is a key player in approach-
avoidance conflict processing.
1.2 The Function of the Hippocampus along the Dorso-Ventral Axis
Early behavioural testing of animals with hippocampal lesions indicated that damage to the
region had striking effects in approach-avoidance conflicts (Crespi, 1942; Jarrard, Isaacson, &
3
Wickelgren, 1964; Niki, 1965). Under conditions of affective conflict, animals with hippocampal
lesions would seemingly ignore the aversive consequences of their actions when faced with the
possibility of reward, overexert themselves for small rewards, or resist extinction when reward
was withheld. These results were also seen with the application of clinically effective anti-
anxiety medication, and these medications also have the effect of reducing the influence of
hippocampal theta rhythms generated by interactions with the septal nuclei (Gray &
Mcnaughton, 2000). These primary observations led to a septo-hippocampal theory of anxiety,
represented in a mature form as the idea that the regions act together as a coherent behavioural
inhibition system (BIS). The function of the system in normal animals is to enhance the salience
of negative outcome predicting stimuli and decrease approach behaviours under situations where
motivational conflicts are detected. Conversely it has also been suggested that most of the same
effects could be seen if the system normally blunts the salience of positive outcome predictions
(Ito & Lee, 2016).
The HPC’s role in behavioural inhibition has historically been overshadowed by the prominent
effects it has on mnemonic processes, as indicated by the dramatic deficits in declarative and
spatial memory caused by HPC lesions (Black, Nadel, & O’Keefe, 1977; Scoville & Milner,
1957). Although the BIS theory does attempt to explain how hippocampal damage could result in
mnemonic deficits, other theories in turn could plausibly explain away the results of at least
some of the behavioural inhibition studies. Many of the earlier studies could be explained as a
failure to use place strategies to associate certain locations with particular outcomes, with cue
learning intact (Black et al., 1977). Since much of the early evidence for behavioural inhibition
functions had a spatial component, this appears to be a plausible explanation for the results.
Regardless of the merit behavioural inhibition theories had to explain certain evidence other
theories struggled to explain, the notion that the HPC primarily mediates some form of memory
or spatial reasoning became and now remains the dominant view (Burgess, Maguire, & O’Keefe,
2002).
However, the view that the HPC is a unitary structure with one function has been challenged by
work demonstrating anatomically, genetically, and functionally specialized domains along its
dorsoventral axis (Moser & Moser, 1998; Strange et al., 2014). While the dorsal part of the HPC
in rodents (dHPC) appears to be important for mediating spatial/mnemonic functions, as
4
deficiencies in spatial processing that appear when this portion is selectively damaged closely
mirror those observed with complete hippocampal lesions (Moser, Moser, Forrest, Andersen, &
Morris, 1995), the vHPC is more closely associated with various affective functions, most
typically anxiety (Fanselow & Dong, 2010). Many studies have linked damage of the vHPC with
a decrease in anxiety in innately fearful situations (Pentkowski, Blanchard, Lever, Litvin, &
Blanchard, 2006) though it has also shown involvement in reactions to conditioned stimuli as
well (Maren & Holt, 2004; Schumacher et al., 2016). Anatomically, the vHPC is notable for
showing extensive anatomical and functional connections with structures associated with
processing affective information, including the amygdala (Felix-Ortiz et al., 2013; Ishikawa &
Nakamura, 2006), nucleus accumbens shell (Friedman, Aggleton, & Saunders, 2002; Okuyama,
Kitamura, Roy, Itohara, & Tonegawa, 2016), medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) (Ciocchi,
Passecker, Malagon-Vina, Mikus, & Klausberger, 2015; Padilla-Coreano et al., 2016; Parfitt et
al., 2017) and hypothalamus via the lateral septum (Canteras & Swanson, 1992).
In addition to the dorsal-ventral dichotomy, some have suggested that the middle third of the
hippocampus should be considered an intermediate region, a distinction based mainly on genetic
studies (Dong, Swanson, Chen, Fanselow, & Toga, 2009; Thompson et al., 2008). While this is
certainly an interesting distinction that merits further investigation, it has not been as widely
validated anatomically as the dorsal-ventral dichotomy, and it is not clear what functional
attributes this intermediate region would have. For the purposes of this study and in line with
most current literature, the dHPC will be considered the part of the structure that lies above the
diencephalon and lies horizontally along the brain, while the ventral part lies alongside and
below the diencephalon and stands vertically.
It should also be noted there is evidence the vHPC does not exclusively mediate affective
behaviours and does participate in spatial processing, at least in some limited capacity.
Pyramidal cells in the vHPC appear to acquire place fields during exploration, though these are
much larger and much less numerous than the place fields of dHPC cells (Jung, Wiener, &
McNaughton, 1994). Though the authors of the original paper speculate that these less defined
fields could reflect non-spatial information processing, another group found that the ventral place
cells in the CA1 showed little overlap with anxiety responsive cells (Ciocchi et al., 2015),
suggesting that the ventral place cells may reflect spatial processing independent of affective
5
functions. Supporting this line of reasoning, one recent study implicated vCA3 and vCA1
immediate early gene expression in spatial novelty detection, though the same regions were
involved in a non-spatial version of the same task to a lesser extent (Beer, Chwiesko, &
Sauvage, 2014). Although the studies suggesting the vHPC is involved in spatial and mnemonic
processes are less numerous than those that do not, it appears that the effects reviewed above are
real and require further examination. A proper theory of vHPC function therefore needs to
account for these non-affective processes as well as the emotional behaviours reviewed above.
A small but growing number of human studies have shown the anterior HPC (homologous to the
rodent vHPC (Strange et al., 2014)) is involved in approach-avoidance conflicts and anxiety, in
line with the evidence from animal studies. It has been found that the anterior HPC is more
active when predators threaten to impede subjects on a stimulated exploration task (Bach et al.,
2014), and when confronted with a decision to engage or not engage with stimuli associated with
opposing valenced outcomes (O’Neil et al., 2015). A recent study found that signals in the
anterior HPC not only correlated with avoidance behaviour during a gambling task, but also with
trait anxiety, in line with some of the predictions of the BIS theory (Loh et al., 2016). In all cases
above, no associations were found between behaviours/activity and posterior HPC (the human
homolog of the dHPC). In short, both animal and human studies now support the idea that the
ventral/anterior HPC are associated with affective processes.
It is possible that the results of the vHPC studies discussed above can be explained as conflict
resolution during tasks that involve both the desire to approach and avoid simultaneously (Ito &
Lee, 2016). Such a conflict is created in two common tests of anxiety in rodents, the EPM and
the OF, which require the animal to balance an innate desire to explore new environments (which
could yield positive results) with a desire to avoid situations that could be dangerous (such as
wide, bright areas that leave the animal open to predation). Inactivation of the vHPC increases
the amount of time rodents spend exploring the exposed areas of the EPM and OF compared to
their more conservative controls, indicating an increased approach tendency relative to
avoidance. Another example of conflicting affective processes is how much an animal is willing
to work towards a reward, which can be considered a conflict between the desire for known
reward and the wish to conserve time and effort. Reward omissions during operant tasks will
eventually extinguish reward seeking behaviours at a predictable rate depending on the schedule
6
of reinforcement. With vHPC disruptions however, animals are willing to work much harder for
a reward in extinction tests than controls (Schmelzeis & Mittleman, 1996). Conflict resolution
has also been discussed in relation to theories of the HPC’s role in spatial and mnemonic
functions. It has been proposed that the results of some spatial studies can also be explained
through the dHPC working to resolve conflicts during decision making that utilizes spatial and
sensory information, rather than motivational information (Bannerman et al., 2014). It has been
found that rats with deficient NMDA-dependent long-term potentiation (LTP) in the dentate
gyrus (DG) and CA1 subregions of the HPC had difficulty approaching a hidden platform in a
water maze that was signaled by a beacon that was identical to a distracter beacon when they
were placed closer to the distracter (Bannerman et al., 2012). The results bear some similarity to
the effects of studies examining affective processes, suggesting that the whole HPC implements
a common function or algorithm to resolve conflicts. It is possible that the pattern separation,
pattern completion, and mismatch detection functions commonly described in the
spatial/memory literature ultimately serves to distinguish between close alternative options,
compare representations, and resolve conflicts. What differs between the dHPC and vHPC would
be their inputs and outputs, meaning that the dHPC would work through conflicts between
sensory data and spatial locations, while the vHPC works on conflicts between valences and
responses (Ito & Lee, 2016).
While the evidence points to the involvement of the vHPC in affective behaviours, specifically
those that involve approach-avoidance conflicts, and its distinct anatomical connections could
communicate with other brain regions associated with affective processes, the details about how
the subregions of the vHPC transform the information it receives along its transverse axis
remains relatively underexplored. Much of the work on hippocampal subregions has focused on
the dHPC, and has suggested that each of the major subregions of the HPC serve distinct
functions during the encoding and retrieval of memories. Given that the dHPC and vHPC regions
mainly differ in terms of connections and the small details of their physiology (Agster &
Burwell, 2013; Jung et al., 1994), and not in terms of basic anatomical structure, it is worth
reviewing the consensus functions of the hippocampal subfields, mainly through the work on the
dHPC subregion functions on memory. We will then review the current findings on the effects of
vHPC subregion function.
7
1.3 Functions of the Hippocampal Subregions
The hippocampus proper is a laminar structure with distinct anatomical connections flowing
from the most medial layer outwards, and is the central component of the larger hippocampal
formation. The entorhinal cortex serves as the primary cortical input, and passes information to
the HPC through the DG. The DG then projects to the CA3, which in turn projects onto the CA1.
These three layers form what is traditionally referred to as the trisynaptic circuit. The CA1 in
turn sends efferent connections from the hippocampus proper towards the rest of the
hippocampal formation and neocortex (Andersen, Bliss, & Skrede, 1971; Friedman et al., 2002).
Each of these sub-regions has unique anatomical, structural and functional properties, and is
suspected to process mnemonic information passing through the hippocampus in different ways
(Kesner & Rolls, 2015).
The DG has traditionally been characterised as performing pattern separation on incoming inputs
prior to encoding, orthogonalizing similar stimuli to make the outputs more dissimilar than the
inputs (Kesner, 2013; Sahay, Wilson, & Hen, 2011). This allows animals to distinguish between
previously experienced objects and places, even when the stimuli being compared are very
similar. Although the precise nature of how this pattern separation function is implemented is
still under debate, empirical evidence supports the idea that the computations performed by the
DG result in pattern separation effects (Aimone, Deng, & Gage, 2011; Hunsaker & Kesner,
2013; Johnston, Shtrahman, Parylak, Gonçalves, & Gage, 2016).
The DG sends the majority of its excitatory efferents to the CA3, a layer of pyramidal cells with
recurrent collaterals, projecting back on to its neighbouring principal neurons within the region
(Amaral & Witter, 1989; Rebola, Carta, & Mulle, 2017), allowing it to form a recurrent network
with itself. The unique architecture of this subregion is speculated to form attractor networks,
allowing the CA3 to perform pattern completion, a process where by it can react to partial or
degraded input from the direct projections it receives from the entorhinal cortex and retrieve the
whole representation previously constructed by experience (Kesner & Rolls, 2015; Knierim &
Neunuebel, 2016). Therefore, if a part of an object or event is re-encountered, an animal that has
encoded the event will be able to retrieve a more complete representation.
8
The CA1 is traditionally considered to be the output region for the HPC, recapitulating the
computations of the CA3 and projecting towards the subiculum, entorhinal cortex, and
neocortex. This region has been primarily implicated in performing mismatch detection between
internally stored representations and information about external stimuli, which it receives
through direct projections from the entorhinal cortex (Friedman et al., 2002; Hasselmo, 2005).
However, the CA1 has also been theorized to play a substantial role in olfactory representation,
temporal order processing, recall of long term memories (Hoge & Kesner, 2008; Kesner & Rolls,
2015; Li et al., 2017), and even forms of pattern completion depending on the task demands
(Guzowski, Knierim, & Moser, 2004). The presence of entorhinal inputs into the CA1 also
highlights the fact that although the HPC was considered a linear closed circuit for a long time,
each region receives inputs and sends outputs to multiple regions (Risold & Swanson, 1997;
Witter, 2007; Yeckel & Berger, 1990)
In contrast to the work described above, much of the work on the vHPC has treated it as a unitary
structure, with lesion studies damaging the whole HPC rather than in parts (Moser et al., 1995;
Schumacher et al., 2016). This changed in recent years, as studies have begun to examine the
specific properties of the vHPC subfields and their functional contributions to affective
behaviours. For example, the HPC is known to both control and be affected by stress (Conrad,
2008), and chronic stress in the vCA3 actually increases the number of apical dendrites, in
contrast to the decrease seen in the dCA3 (Pinto et al., 2015). The vCA1, in contrast to the
dCA1, shows considerable activation to anxiogenic situations, and responsive cells project to a
range of targets, the most prominent being the mPFC (Ciocchi et al., 2015). In one of the few
studies directly comparing the effects of disruption to different vHPC subfields, it was found that
temporary inhibition of the vCA3 and vCA1 during approach-avoidance conflicts lead to
opposing behavioural effects, with the vCA3 necessary for inhibiting approach, and the vCA1
necessary for potentiating approach towards conflicting conditioned cues (Schumacher,
Villaruel, Riaz, Lee, & Ito, 2017).
One region that has been relatively understudied thus far in the vHPC literature is the DG, at
least compared to the vCA3 and vCA1. Like the vHPC, the vDG appears to be distinct from the
dDG. Though the two halves of the DG have similar first order input regions, these projections
appear to originate from non-overlapping portions of those regions, and second order inputs to
9
the vDG appear to be more closely related to affective processes than the dDG’s inputs (Ohara,
Sato, Tsutsui, Witter, & Iijima, 2013). When the vDG of rats is lesioned, it recapitulates the
effects of complete vHPC damage on the EPM and OF tests (Weeden, Roberts, Kamm, &
Kesner, 2015), though other studies have found contradictory results on the same tests (Kheirbek
et al., 2013). In addition to the effects of whole vDG manipulation, others have looked
specifically at the role that adult born neurons play in vDG processes, an unsurprising topic of
interest given the correlation between neurogenesis in the region and the efficacy of anti-
depressant and anxiolytic medication (Sahay, Drew, & Hen, 2007), as well as the vHPC’s
purported role in emotional behaviours. It has been found that immature adult born neurons in
the vDG are necessary for the anxiolytic/antidepressant effects of fluoxetine (Wu & Hen, 2014).
Additionally, immediate early gene expression indicates that adult born granule cells in the sub
granular zone of the vHPC are preferentially activated during the Morris water maze (Snyder,
Radik, Wojtowicz, & Cameron, 2009), which the authors posit as either as an effect of the
stressful nature of the test or an involvement by the region in contextual fear learning. The latter
implication is interesting, as fear learning in this case requires the animal to distinguish between
safe and dangerous contexts that are not easily distinguishable during learning, and could require
DG mediated pattern separation.
1.4 The Ventral Dentate Gyrus and Learned Approach-Avoidance
Conflicts
The present study examined what specific role the vDG plays in learned approach-avoidance
conflict resolution. Previous studies examined these the effects of temporary pharmacological
inactivations of subregions of the dHPC and vHPC while animals are subjected to a bivalent
approach-avoidance Y-maze paradigm (BAA Y-Maze) (Schumacher et al., 2016). In brief, rats
were trained to associate 3 distinct visuotactile cues with either appetitive, aversive, or neutral
outcomes in a 3-arm Y-maze. Once they demonstrated appropriate discrimination behaviour by
preferentially approaching the appetitive and avoiding the aversive cues, an approach-avoidance
conflict was created by combining the positive and negative associated cues in a single arm. The
various measures taken in this design allows the assessment of how desirable the conflicting cue
arm is relative to neutral arm, how willing the animal is to re-enter the arm following exposure,
and how motivational conflict is perceived. This test also eliminates most spatial aspects during
10
training to prevent learning by place strategies. Additionally, this paradigm can also confirm that
after the conflict test animals still respond to simple valenced stimuli in a normal manner by
directly comparing how much animals prefer an arm of one valence compared to a non-valenced
arm. Additionally the vDG has been shown by various methods to be involved in novelty
detection, anxiety, pattern separation, and locomotion (Bannerman et al., 1999; Hunsaker,
Rosenberg, & Kesner, 2008; Weeden et al., 2015). The role the vDG plays in each of these
processes were assessed by a novelty detection test in a Y-maze, an EPM test, a metric pattern
discrimination test, and a locomotor test. The results indicate that the vDG is a critical actor in
the detection and resolution learned approach-avoidance conflicts.
Methods
2.1 Subjects
Subjects consisted of 38 male Long-Evans rats weighing 350-450g at time of surgery (Charles
River Laboratories, NJ, USA). They were housed in groups of two in a room held at a constant
temperature of 21 degrees, under a 12 h light/dark cycle (lights on at 7:00 A.M). Water was
available ad libitum, while food was restricted to ~18 g of lab chow per day prior to behavioral
testing, sufficient to maintain 85-90% of preoperative body weight. All experiments were
conducted during the light phase and in accordance with the guidelines of Canadian Council of
Animal Care, and approved by the University Animal Care Committee of the University of
Toronto.
2.2 Surgery
Rats were anesthetized with isoflurane (Benson Medical, ON, Canada) and placed in a
stereotaxic frame (Steolting Co, IL) with the incisor bar set at -3.3 mm below the interaural line.
An incision along the midline of the skull was made, and the tissue retracted by small skin clips
to reveal the bregma. Small burr holes were created at the cannulation sites using a dental drill,
and 23-guage stainless steel bilateral cannulae (Cooper’s Needleworks, Birmingham, UK)
implanted into vDG, with the bottom of the cannulae sitting 1mm above the final target
coordinates (AP: -6.5mm, ML: ±4.6mm, DV: -5.5mm). The cannulae were affixed to the skull
11
with dental cement and jewellers’ screws, and stainless-steel stylets were inserted into the guide
cannulae to maintain patency. Surgeries typically lasted 1-2 hours. Rats were then given at least
7 days to recover before the start of behavioural training.
2.3 Radial Arm Maze Apparatus
Behavioral testing for the approach-avoidance conflict task took place in a six-arm radial maze
(Med Associates, VT) placed on a rotatable table elevated 80 cm from the floor. The maze
consisted of six enclosed arms [45.7 cm (L) 3 16.5 cm (H) 3 9.0 cm (W)] stemming from a
central hub compartment with six automatic stainless steel guillotine doors allowing access to the
arms. Arms were enclosed by Plexiglas walls and a removable Plexiglas lid, and contained a
stainless grid floor connected to a shock generator (Med Associates, VT). The end of each arm
contained a receding well consisting of a stainless-steel tray that could be connected to a syringe
pump for the delivery of liquid sucrose. The entire maze was covered in red cellophane paper to
block visibility of extramaze cues, while enabling video recording of behavior via a video
camera mounted above the apparatus. Only three out of six arms (forming a Y maze) were used
at any one time in an experimental session. The maze was wiped down with ethanol solution
after each session to eliminate odor traces, and the maze was randomly rotated left or right by
varying degrees (60, 120, or 180) at the end of the testing day to minimize possible conditioning
to intra-maze cues.
2.4 Habituation
Rats began with 4 habituation sessions. For the first session, animals were initially placed in the
central hub for 1-min adaptation time, after which all three doors retracted, allowing the animal
to explore all arms for 5-min without any cues present. At the end of the trial, the doors
automatically close, with animals returned to the centre manually before removal from the maze.
After the completion of this phase, animals were re-exposed to the maze and run through the cue
conditioning procedure (see relevant section below) without any cues to acclimate the animal
confinement in the maze arms prior to conditioning. The next day, animals were run on their
third habituation phase with visuotactile cues present. The session lasted 6-min total, with 1-min
hub time and 5-min free arm exploration. Cues consisted of either vinyl, duct tape, or wooden
12
bars placed along the sides of the arm walls [45 cm (L) 3 4 cm (W) 3 0.5 cm (D)]. Following this
habituation session, cues were designated appetitive, aversive, or neutral, as determined by the
amount of initial exploration time in the habitation session: the most preferred cue was
designated the aversive cue, the least explored the appetitive cue, and the remaining one the
neutral cue. The final habituation session was performed immediately afterwards, consisting of a
2-arm maze configuration, with one arm containing a combination of both ‘appetitive’ and
‘aversive’ cues (an appetitive and aversive cue placed on opposite walls), and a separate arm
containing a neutral cue. This was done to eliminate the chance that any effects seen in the
conflict could be explained by the presentation of a novel combinatory stimulus. The time spent
in each arm was measured for the latter two sessions.
2.5 BAA Y-Maze Cue Conditioning
Animals underwent 12 daily conditioning sessions to concurrently acquire appetitive and
aversive cue conditioning. Each session began with a 30-sec adaptation period in the hub,
followed by a 2-min confinement in each of the 3 arms. Animals had 10-sec to shuttle either into
or out of the arm, after which the experimenter would manually move the animal. This was done
to insure the animal had access to each cue for equal amounts of time. In the arm containing the
appetitive cues, the animals received 4 aliquots of 0.4 ml 20% sucrose solution delivered at 30-
sec intervals. In the arm with the aversive cues, the animals received 4 mild shocks (1 s, 0.25-
0.40 mA) delivered at random intervals. The shock levels were calibrated for each animal to
elicit startle responses without freezing. In the arm with the neutral cue, the animals did not
experience any reward or shock. Previous studies have demonstrated that these specific
schedules of sucrose reward and shock facilitate the development of conditioned approach and
avoidance respectively without inducing generalized fear of the apparatus and freezing responses
to the aversive cue, and results in normal animals spending roughly equal times in the conflict
and neutral arms during the conflict test (Hamel, Thangarasa, Samadi, & Ito, 2017; Nguyen,
Schumacher, Erb, & Ito, 2015; Schumacher et al., 2016). The order of arm presentation was
varied daily to prevent the animals associating the outcomes with the sequence of arm
presentation.
13
2.6 Conditioned Cue Acquisition Test and Group Allocation
After every fourth conditioning session, rats underwent a conditioned cue acquisition test to
assess learning of the cue contingencies. Rats could explore the appetitive, aversive, and neutral
cues for 5-min, in the absence of the sucrose or shock. The time spent exploring each of the arms
were recorded by a camera above the maze. Successful acquisition of conditioned cue preference
and avoidance was indicated by (1) more time spent interacting with the appetitive cue than with
the neutral and aversive cues (conditioned cue preference), and (2) time spent interacting with
the aversive cue being shorter than the appetitive and neutral cues (conditioned cue avoidance).
Times from the last acquisition session were analysed and the animals split into drug and saline
groups.
To prevent extinction of the cue contingencies, the animals received a refresher cue conditioning
session on the same day of the acquisition test. Animals underwent 3 cue acquisition tests
overall, after which they were either moved onto the conflict test, or excluded due to poor
learning. Of the 24 animals that survived to the behavioural testing phase, 22 were moved onto
the final phase. Of these, 2 were excluded due to blocked cannulae, 3 showed behaviour outside
of 2 standard deviations from the mean, and 1 was very uncooperative during testing, for a final
group of 16 for the conflict test. Non-learners were used for tests not dependent on BAA Y-Maze
performance. Final group sizes are indicated in the results section of all relevant tests.
2.7 Drug Microinfusion
On the day following the final acquisition test, each animal underwent a saline infusion before
their conditioning session, to minimize the mechanical effects of subsequent drug infusions and
to habituate the animals to the infusion procedure. On the following day, those who had
successfully acquired the cue-outcome associations received bilateral infusions of either a
cocktail of GABA-A receptor agonist muscimol and the GABA-B receptor agonist baclofen
(75ng of each drug dissolved in 0.9% saline, hereafter referred to as BM) or 0.9% saline vehicle
at a volume of 0.3 μl into the region of interest. The drug was infused at a rate of 0.3 μl/min for
1-min via 30-gauge microinjectors projecting 1 mm below the indwelling guide cannulae using
an infusion pump (Harvard Apparatus) mounted with 5μl Hamilton syringes. The micro-injectors
were left in place for a further 1-min to allow the drug to diffuse away from the injector tip.
14
During microinfusion animals were held and lightly handled to minimize stress and avoid
injector loss due to movement. A recent study that looked at c-Fos expression following this
same BM infusion procedure found that in neural tissue this results in a 0.3mm radius of reduced
neural activity (Hamel et al., 2017). It is therefore likely that this amount of drug will effectively
reduce neural activity in the vDG within a restricted spatial area. Approximately 10-15 min after
the end of each infusion, the relevant test was administered.
2.8 Mixed Valence Approach-Avoidance Conflict Test
Procedures for this test were identical to the fourth habituation described in section 2.4. During
this session, a state of approach-avoidance conflict was induced in the rats by placing two stimuli
of opposite valences (reward- or shock-associated cue) in one arm, and presenting the neutral cue
in another arm. The time spent in each of the arms and the latency to enter each arm were
recorded by camera for each animal. In addition, the number of entries, the number of retreats
(head only, or half body entries into an arm that did not result in full entries) in the arms were
recorded for each animal.
2.9 Novelty Detection
Following the conflict test, a novelty detection test was administered in a Y-maze decorated with
distinct visual cues lining outside the arm walls, and the lids were clear for visual access to extra-
maze cues. Rats were therefore able to use both intra- and extra-maze cues to detect novelty, and
had access to both spatial and non-spatial information. The test consisted of habituation and test
phases. During habituation, rats were placed at the end of one arm and presented with an
additional arm. Rats were permitted to explore both (familiar) arms for 10-min, and the time
spent exploring each arm was recorded. If the rats showed similar exploration pattern for both
arms, they were tested in the second phase. During the test phase, rats were given access to a
third “novel” arm and to the two familiar arms for 5-min. Time spent exploring each arm was
recorded, and an average for the time spent exploring the two familiar arms was calculated for
comparison with the novel arm.
15
2.10 Retraining and Conditioned Cue Preference Test
The day following the conflict and novelty tests, animals received a final cue conditioning
session to prevent extinction to cue valences. On the day following retraining, animals received
another infusion of the same drug they had previously received. 10-15 min following infusion,
animals were exposed to two arms in the maze. One was always neutral, and the other was either
the appetitive or aversive arm. This allowed us to directly compare the animal’s choice between
a simple valenced stimulus and a non-valenced one, in order to assess their preference between
the two. Other than this, the procedure was identical to the fourth habituation described in
section 2.4. After their initial session, they were re-exposed to the same maze 10-15 min later to
assess their preference with the other valence. First valence exposure was counterbalanced
between animals.
2.11 Elevated Plus Maze
The EPM exploits rats’ natural avoidance of bright, open spaces relative to dark ones, and was
therefore used as a test of innate anxiety following preference testing. Previous work has also
indicated that lesioning the vDG shows effects similar to whole HPC lesions (Weeden et al.,
2015). The maze is composed of black Perspex, with a central platform [10 cm (L) × 10 cm (W)]
that connects four arms [40 cm (L) × 10 cm (W) × 22 cm (H)]. Following either BM or saline
infusion, rats were placed in the central platform facing an open arm and allowed to explore for
5-min. Time spent in arms and arm entries were measured. Following the EPM, animals were
also taken off food restriction for their final two tests.
2.12 Metric Pattern Discrimination
Previous research has implicated the DG in metric pattern separation (Hunsaker et al., 2008),
although was only examined in the dDG. On the day following the EPM, rats underwent training
in an additional metric pattern discrimination task, in which they were placed in an open arena
[45 cm (L) × 45 cm (W) × 40 cm (H)], where they freely explored the arena. After an initial 5-
min habituation session to the blank apparatus and the room, the rats underwent 3 sessions
lasting 5-min each. In these sessions, objects were introduced into the arena located exactly 40
cm apart. Exploration of the objects were measured in each phase, with the expectation that
exploratory time would decrease as the objects become familiar to the rats. After the 4th phase,
16
rats received intra-cerebral infusions of either BM or saline, followed by 10-min in home cage.
Rats then underwent two more 5-min sessions to explore the objects in their original positions.
For the final phase, objects were moved closer together (20 cm apart), and the rats explored the
arena for a further 5-min. It was expected that the control rats would be able to detect the
changes in the locations of the two objects by reinstating their exploration of the two objects,
while disruption of spatial pattern separation would not allow the rats to recognize any change
has been made and would not increase their exploration.
2.13 Locomotor test
To test for locomotor effects, BM or saline-infused animals were placed in a locomotor chamber
[plastic cage: 47.4 cm (L) × 26.4 cm (W) × 20.5 cm (H)] for a 1-hour session in which they
could freely explore the chamber. Locomotor activity was recorded using a camera and
EthoVision XT software (Noldus Information Technology, ON, Canada), and were measured as
the distance traveled in cm in 5-min bins.
2.14 Histological Procedure
All rats were anesthetized with sodium pentobarbital (2mL/4.5kg, Bimeda-MTC, Cambridge,
ON) and perfused intracardially via the ascending aorta with 0.9% saline, followed by 4%
paraformaldehyde (PFA) solution. Brains were removed, stored in 4% PFA, and transferred to a
20% sucrose cryoprotectant solution before sectioning. Coronal sections (50-60 μm) of the brain
were cut using a vibratome and stained with cresyl violet, to be viewed under the microscope for
the verification of cannulae placements.
2.15 Data Analysis
All data was analyzed using R. A 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the
time spent from each of the conditioned cue preference/avoidance tests with Drug Condition
(BM infusion; Saline infusion) as the between-subject factor and Arm (Appetitive, Aversive,
Neutral Cue) as the within-subject factor. All data (time spent, number of entries, number of
retreats) from the conflict test day was subjected to a 2-way ANOVA with Drug Condition as the
between-subject factor, and Arm (Combined Cue; Neutral Cue) as the within-subjects factor.
17
Identical analyses were run for the initial conflict habituation, as well as the appetitive and
aversive preference tests. EPM arm open arm entries and time in open arms were analyzed with
an ANOVA (Drug between-subject factor). Total time spent exploring objects in the MPD was
measured by the a 2-way ANOVA with Drug as the between-subject factor and Session as the
within-subject factor. Difference scores between the time exploring the objects in test session
minus time exploring during the final habituation session were used to compare pattern
discrimination by drug group. Finally, the distance travelled during the locomotor test was
analyzed with a 2-way ANOVA with Drugs as between-subject factor and time Bin as within-
subject factor.
Results
3.1 Histological Verification
Inactivation sites ranged from roughly -6.04 to -6.8 mm posterior to bregma (Paxinos & Watson,
1998) (Figure 1). One animal’s infusion site could not be verified, and was excluded from
analyses.
3.2 Habituation
BM and saline group numbers were n = 8 and n = 8, respectively. The final habituation session
prior to training mimicked the approach-avoidance conflict test to show that the groups did not
show any initial bias towards the arms (Figure 2). Analysis did not show any effect of arm or
drug condition (Arm: F (1,28) = 1.499, p = 0.23; Drug: F (1,28) = 0.058, p = 0.81), nor any
interactions (Arm x Drug interaction: F (1,28) = 0.007, p = 0.93). Therefore, it is unlikely that
the effects seen could be accounted for by an inherent preference for the conflict or neutral
stimuli by either group.
3.3 Conditioned Cue Acquisition
BM and saline group numbers were n = 8 and n = 8, respectively. When animals were divided
into either BM or saline groups, analysis on their final acquisition test indicated a significant
effect of arm (Arm: F (2,42) = 59.906, p < 0.001), but not by drug condition or any interaction
(Drug: F (2,42) = 0.277, p = 0.60; Arm x Drug interaction: F (1,42) = 1.20, p = 0.31) (Figure 3).
Therefore, in both groups animals successfully learned to preferentially approach the appetitive
18
arm over the neutral (BM: F (1,12) = 12.44, p < 0.01; saline: F (1,12) = 27.17, p < 0.001), and
avoid the aversive arm more than the neutral (BM: F (1,12) = 15.49, p < 0.01; saline: F (1,12) =
5.881, p < 0.05).
3.4 Mixed Valence Approach-Avoidance Conflict Test
BM and saline group numbers were n = 8 and n = 8, respectively. ANOVA of overall time spent
in arms indicated a significant interaction between the arm and drug condition (Arm x Drug
interaction: F (1,28) = 4.761, p < 0.05) (Figure 4). Planned comparisons demonstrated this effect
was driven by the drug group preferring the conflict arm relative to the neutral arm (F (1,14) =
10.22, p < 0.01). In contrast, the saline group showed no preference for either arm (F (1,14) =
0.017, p = 0.90). The results suggest that under circumstances of conditioned conflict, an inactive
vDG leads to increased approach towards conflict stimuli.
In addition, ANOVA showed trending effects toward a drug by arm interaction when looking at
the number of retreat behaviours observed (Arm x Drug interaction: F (1,24) = 3.857, p = 0.06),
which appears to be driven by the BM group making less retreats from the conflict arm than the
saline group (F (1,12) = 5.042, p < 0.05) (Figure 6). However, no significant main effects or
interactions were observed for the number of full body entries into either arm (Arm: F (1,24) =
2.843, p = 0.11; Drug: F (1,24) = 0.482, p = 0.49; Arm x Drug interaction: F (1,24) = 0.797, p =
0.38) (Figure 5).
3.5 Novelty Detection
BM and saline group numbers were n = 10 and n = 10, respectively. Novelty habituation showed
no significant effects of drug or arm (Arm: F (1,36) = 0.081, p = 0.73; Drug: F (1,36) = 0.081, p
= 0.78), or any interaction (Arm x Drug: F (1,36) = 0.617, p = 0.44). This indicates that during
habituation, neither group showed any preference for either of the arms (Figure 7). In the novelty
test, analysis of variance showed a significant effect of arm (Arm: F (1,36) = 63.618, p < 0.001),
but no effect of drug or interaction (Drug: F (1,36) = 0.318, p = 0.58; Arm x Drug interaction: F
(1,42) = 0.147, p = 0.70). Pairwise comparisons showed that both drug and saline groups
preferred to spend time in the novel arm relative to the start and familiar arms (BM: F = (1,18) =
36.88, p < 0.001; saline: F = (1,18) = 27.38, p < 0.001), suggesting that novelty detection was
preserved in the drug group (Figure 8).
19
3.6 Conditioned Preference
BM and saline group numbers were n = 7 and n = 7, respectively Preference testing indicated
that neither the drug or saline groups showed any changes in preference when presented with
either the appetitive or aversive arms alone vs. the neutral. ANOVA in the appetitive preference
test showed an effect of arm (Arm: F (1,24) = 28.6185, p < 0.001), but not for drug or any
interaction (Drug: F (1,24) = 0.8997, p = 0.35; Arm x Drug interaction: F (1,24) = 0.1036, p =
0.75), driven by a preference by both groups for the appetitive arm (BM: F = (1,12) = 11.01, p <
0.01; saline: F = (1,12) = 23.46, p < 0.001) (Figure 9). The results were the same for the aversive
preference omnibus test (Arm: F (1,24) = 12.183, p < 0.01; Drug: F (1,24) = 0.805, p = 0.38;
Arm x Drug interaction: F (1,24) = 0.070, p = 0.79), but was driven for preference for the neutral
arm (BM: F = (1,12) = 6.844, p < 0.05; saline: F = (1,12) = 5.686, p < 0.05) (Figure 10). This
suggests that inactivation of the vDG does not impair the association between cue and outcome
per se, nor act to potentiate approach towards simple appetitive or aversive stimuli.
3.7 Elevated Plus Maze
BM and saline group numbers were n = 8 and n = 11, respectively ANOVA did not indicate
significant effect of condition when comparing the overall time in the open arm of the EPM in
drug group compared to the saline group (Arm: F (1,17) = 1.333, p < 0.26) (Figure 11).
Similarly, no effects were observed for the number of entries (Arm: F (1,17) = 0.221, p < 0.64)
(Figure 12). Therefore, it does not appear that vDG inactivations had any effect on innate anxiety
in this test.
3.8 Metric Pattern Detection
BM and saline group numbers were n = 8 and n = 12, respectively ANOVA found a significant
effect of session (Session: F (1,115) = 28.46, p < 0.001), but no effect for drug or interaction
(Drug: F (1,115) = 0.937, p = 0.34; Session x Drug interaction: F (1,115) = 0.013, p = 0.91).
Effect of session appears to be driven by a gradual decrease in time spent exploring objects in the
SPS, with a slight increase in the final session when objects are moved together (Figure 13). Test
minus final habituation difference scores were not different between the groups (F (1, 18) =
2.342, p = 0.14) (Figure 14). These results indicate that the vDG is not necessary for metric
pattern discrimination.
20
3.9 Locomotion
Group numbers for the BM and saline groups were n = 7 and n = 7, respectively ANOVA results
showed a main effect of time bin and drug (Bin: F (1,164) = 60.620, p < 0.001; Drug: F (1,164 =
7.865, p < 0.01), but no interaction (Bin x Drug: F (1,176) = 0.271, p = 0.60). However, post-hoc
analysis could not find any effects that survived correction. These results suggest that
inactivation of the vDG might attenuate spontaneous locomotion (Figure 15).
4 Discussion
4.1 The Ventral Dentate Gyrus is Involved in Approach-Avoidance
Conflicts with Conditioned Cues
The results of the conflict test demonstrated potentiated approach into the conflict arm for vDG
inactivated animals. This appears to be the first observed instance of vDG involvement in
learned approach-avoidance conflicts. These patterns cannot be explained as potentiated
approach towards stimuli associated with appetitive or aversive outcomes, since the inactivated
group demonstrated normal approach and avoidance of cues during preference testing.
Therefore, it appears the vDG is critical for normal approach-avoidance behaviours, but not
during the presentation of simple affective stimuli. The effects are also unlikely to be due to
impaired novelty or increased locomotion, which were found to be normal and attenuated in the
BM group, respectively. Finally, the BAA Y-Maze paradigm precluded the use of spatial
strategies, and therefore the results cannot be the result of damage to spatial navigation systems
or the use of spatial reasoning.
The results are also consistent with the results of inactivation of both the entire vHPC
(Schumacher et al., 2016) and the vCA3 (Schumacher et al., 2017). Given the established
anatomical and functional coupling of the DG and CA3, these results suggest that the regions
could act together in mediating behaviours seen in learned approach-avoidance conflicts. In
contrast, the results are the opposite of those seen with vCA1 inactivation, where animals show a
preference for the neutral arm. This possibly suggests the vDG and vCA3 might act
independently of the vCA1 in approach-avoidance conflicts, with their combined activity needed
for normal approach behaviour in learned conflict scenarios.
21
4.2 The Results cannot be explained by Novelty or Pattern Separation
Deficits
Novelty testing revealed no abnormal behaviour by the vDG inactivated animals, as all
successfully discriminated between familiar and novel arms. Therefore, the results cannot be
explained through abnormal novelty processing. This stands in contrast to the results of the
previous study mentioned above (Schumacher et al., 2017), where it was found that inactivation
of both vCA3 and vCA1 resulted in novelty detection deficits. Given that the function of pattern
separation (a primary DG function) is to ensure new patterns to be learned by the CA3 are not
encoded in the same neural location as similar previously stored information, it is likely that the
novel arm patterns encountered by the animal (combined spatial and non-spatial stimuli) where
distinct enough from the previously encountered patterns to not need additional
orthogonalization during encoding. However, functions typically ascribed to the CA3 and CA1
(pattern completion and mismatch detection respectively) might be needed in the vHPC to show
typical effects during this test, which would allow the animal to store arm patterns and detect
mismatches between expected arm patterns. In this case, the data suggests that vDG mediated
pattern separation does not appear to be necessary for normal performance in this test.
In addition, the vDG does not appear to be required for metric pattern discrimination, which has
been shown to be sensitive to dDG manipulation (Hunsaker et al., 2008). This suggests that at
the level of fine discriminations of changes to spatial relations between objects, the vDG is not
an important actor. This raises the question of what exactly the role of the vDG might be when it
comes to both pattern separation and spatial processing. In terms of the former, while some work
has been done on olfactory and reward pattern separation by the vDG (Kirk, Redmon, & Kesner,
2016; Weeden, Hu, Ho, & Kesner, 2014), the precise nature of its involvement is still unclear,
and cannot readily explain the results seen in these experiments, as olfaction was not a major
factor in any tests, and reward value was not systematically varied in a way necessary to elicit
pattern separation (Hunsaker & Kesner, 2013). For spatial processing, while it has been
speculated that the vHPC as a whole might exert effects on larger spatial areas than the dHPC
(Jung et al., 1994; Poppenk, Evensmoen, Moscovitch, & Nadel, 2013), the role of the vDG in
this model is not immediately obvious, and should be explored in more detail in future studies.
22
4.3 Inconsistent EPM Results
Inactivation of the vDG appears to have had no effect on the amount of time in the open arms or
open arm entries in the EPM, in contrast to tests of innate anxiety during inactivation of the
whole vHPC or vCA3 (Kjelstrup et al., 2002; Schumacher et al., 2017) and even studies on the
vDG (Weeden et al., 2015). This is surprising given the tight functional coupling between the
DG and CA3, as well as the fact that the DG projects directly to regions that have been found to
inhibit approach into the open arms under normal conditions (Yamaguchi, Danjo, Pastan, Hikida,
& Nakanishi, 2013). However, this is not the first time suppressing vDG function has shown no
effects on the EPM, as another study found that optogenetic inhibition of vDG granule cells had
no noticeable effect (Kheirbek et al., 2013). The same study also found that optogenetic
stimulation could drive open arm exploration, though these results are difficult to interpret, since
large scale activation of the region is biologically implausible given the low basal rate of activity
by DG granule cells.
It is unclear why these findings diverge so sharply. It is possible that this present study
had an unusual number of outliers, as the standard deviation of the BM group was quite high (SD
= 45-sec, on a mean of 85-sec in the open arms), though this does not explain why Kheirbek et
al. found the same results. It has also quite possible the lesioning technique used by Weeden et
al. exerted a more powerful effect than the pharmacologic inactivation of this study or the
optogenetic inhibition of Kheirbek et al. Finally, it is worth considering the possibility that
inhibiting the vDG does not exert powerful effects on innate anxiety, and the effects of earlier
studies were false positives. Currently, the evidence is not strong enough to make a conclusion.
4.4 Locomotion results Unexpected
The results of the locomotor test were surprising, given that previous work on the vHPC either
found increased locomotion with inactivation/damage (Lipska, Jaskiw, Chrapusta, Karoum, &
Weinberger, 1992) or no effect (Bannerman et al., 1999; Schumacher et al., 2017). Previous
work suggested that increases in locomotion might be related to food search in the presence of
cues associated with food (Tracy, Jarrard, & Davidson, 2001). However, in this case animals
were well fed, having been taken off food restriction for at least 24 hours prior to locomotion
testing, and had access to food at least 5 minutes before the start of testing, so motivation for
food should have been low. Additionally, the animals were tested in a novel room without any
23
cues associated with the delivery of food. Therefore, it is unlikely that changes to energy
conservation/balance could explain the results. This effect does not appear to show up at any
particular time point during testing, as no single time bin survived post-hoc analysis. Further
work should be done to investigate these findings.
Limitations and Future Directions
This series of experiments highlights and clarifies several important processes the vDG
participates in. Most notably, the vDG appears to be a critical actor in vHPC mediated approach-
avoidance processing during learned conflicts, with inactivation of the region recapitulating the
effects seen with whole vHPC inactivation. Given the similarity of these effects to those seen
with vCA3 inactivation, as well as the documented anatomical coupling between the regions, it is
possible that they work as a subsystem within the HPC to drive avoidance under normal
approach-avoidance conflict conditions. It is unclear whether that the vDG also mediates
avoidance of situations that naturally give rise to anxiety, as the results of this study are
inconsistent with those of others (Weeden et al., 2015). Finally, it appears that inactivation of the
region has some effect of locomotion, but unlike its dorsal counterpart is not involved in spatial
pattern separation.
The results offer insights into internal workings and functions of the vHPC. It now clear that
each component of the ventral tri-synaptic circuit has some role in approach-avoidance conflicts
with both innate and learned valenced stimuli, though the effects vary for each region. However,
much work remains to be done on how these functions are implemented by the neural
architecture of the HPC. Only the results of the novelty detection experiment were easily
explainable in terms of functions commonly ascribed to the HPC subregions. Currently it is
unclear how the tri-synaptic circuit that performs (in linear order) pattern separation, pattern
completion, and mismatch detection would explain the observed results here and in other studies
on both learned and innate tests of approach-avoidance conflict. In fact, an alternative could be
that the effects observed might occur through means other than the traditional circuit
(Schumacher et al., 2017). The vDG, vCA3, and vCA1 all send out unique efferent projection
patterns, though some have a more diverse set of target regions than others. It appears that in at
least one case, subregions of the HPC can target different parts of a single structure. Both the
vCA3 and vCA1 send projections to different areas in the lateral septum (caudal lateral septum
24
and rosto-ventral lateral septum, respectively (Risold & Swanson, 1997)). The lateral septum
(LS) controls the medial septum through GABAergic projections, which in turn controls
hippocampal theta rhythm (Korotkova et al., 2017). In addition, the LS also projects to the
hypothalamus, and manipulations of the region have been shown to affect the same anxiety tests
vHPC is involved in (Degroot & Treit, 2003; Menard & Treit, 1996; Yamaguchi et al., 2013).
While vHPC-LS interactions have been studied (Parfitt et al., 2017), the specific subregions of
the LS were not specifically investigated. Additional regions of interest include the mPFC,
amygdala, and nucleus accumbens, and the VTA, each of which have been implicated in
approach and avoidance behaviours to some degree and are known to have functional
connections with the vHPC (Ciocchi et al., 2015; Lisman & Grace, 2005; Padilla-Coreano et al.,
2016; Parfitt et al., 2017).
Applied more broadly, these results are consistent with literature that emphasizes the
hippocampal formation’s participation in evaluating complex stimuli, without any particular
regard to mnemonic processes (Bannerman et al., 2014; Lee, Yeung, & Barense, 2012). More
specifically, it has been observed that subregions of the dHPC are involved in conflicts where
target spatial positions are marked by a stimulus with a double in an incorrect position
(Bannerman et al., 2012) an effect that is not observed when the visual beacons are dissimilar. It
has also been found that neuropsychiatric patients with damage to the medial temporal lobe show
deficits perceiving subtitle differences between two stimuli when they share many overlapping
features (Lee et al., 2005), even when the stimuli did not have to be remembered. A common
aspect of these studies, as well as the current one, is that all the tasks where the HPC was
involved the participant encountered stimuli that created some sort of conflict that needed to be
resolved. On this interpretation, the dHPC appears to be more involved in conflicts involving
spatial information, while the vHPC is more closely associated with resolving types of affective
conflict (Ito & Lee, 2016), and exert their effects through connections to and from dissimilar
regions.
An interesting aspect of all the specific approach-avoidance conflicts reviewed here, both with
conditioned stimuli and stimuli that elicit innate reactions from the animal, is that the conflict
scenario is novel in some way. Even though this study attempted to minimize novelty effects by
exposing the combined stimuli to the animals prior to conditioning, the exposure of the
appetitive and aversive cues together following conditioning still creates a novel juxtaposition of
25
affective associations that was not present prior to the testing experience. Likewise, the EPM and
light-dark box also create conflict situations most laboratory animals have no prior exposure to,
given their relatively safe and controlled daily experiences. Since the HPC is typically linked to
learning in the presence of novel stimuli, it is worth asking to what extent the vHPC
manipulation in this and other studies would have on well learned conflicts, where the animal is
exposed to a familiar situation that initiates an established approach-avoidance conflict. Current
theories of how the HPC mediate anxiety and approach-avoidance conflicts make no particular
distinctions between novel and well learned conflicts (Gray & Mcnaughton, 2000; Ito & Lee,
2016). Some ideas about the answer to this question could be inferred from patterns of HPC
activity in human participants playing games meant to evoke approach-avoidance conflicts,
which suggest that despite these games becoming familiar over many trials, the HPC is still
involved in well learned conflict scenarios (Bach et al., 2014). Further studies will be needed to
explicitly confirm if this is the case.
In conclusion, evidence strongly supports the idea that the vDG critical for the detection and
resolution of learned approach-avoidance conflicts, and these outcomes are not explainable as
disruption of abnormal approach towards stimuli associated with single valences. This furthers
the growing literature on the internal workings of the vHPC subfields, supporting the notion that
each contributes to specific behavioural processes. In addition to the conflict results, vDG
inhibition showed unique novelty detection and locomotor effects compared to vCA3 and vCA1
inhibition. Given the inconsistent results of the EPM test with existing literature, further
investigation is warranted as to how important the vDG is for mediating innate anxiety reactions.
Finally, the vDG does not appear to be involved in the same type of pattern separation as the
dDG, as indicated by the results of the MPD test.
26
Figures
Figure 1. Placements of injector tips. Red circles are BM infusion sites; black crosses are saline
infusion sites.
27
Figure 2. Time spent in the conflict and neutral arms in the 4th habituation session.
Figure 3. Time spent in each arm during the final cue conditioning acquisition test.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
BM Saline
Tim
e (s
ec)
Conflict Neutral
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
BM Saline
Tim
e (s
ec)
Chart Title Appetitive Aversive Neutral
**
***
***
28
Figure 4. Time spent in each arm during the mixed valence approach-avoidance conflict test.
Figure 5. Number of entries during mixed valence approach-avoidance conflict test
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
BM Saline
Tim
e (s
ec)
Conflict Neutral**
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
BM Saline
En
trie
s
Conflict Neutral
29
Figure 6. Number of retreats during mixed valence approach-avoidance conflict test.
Figure 7. Time spent in start and familiar arms during novelty habituation.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
BM Saline
Ret
reat
s
Conflict Neutral
*
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
BM Saline
Tim
e (s
ec)
Start Familiar
30
Figure 8. Time spent in familiar arms and novel arms during novelty test.
Figure 9. Time spent in appetitive and neural arms during final preference test.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
BM Saline
Tim
e (s
ec)
Familiar Novel
**
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
BM Saline
Tim
e (s
ec)
Appetitive Neutral
*****
31
Figure 10. Time spent in aversive and neural arms during final preference test.
Figure 11. Time spent in the open arm of elevated plus maze.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
BM Saline
Tim
e (s
ec)
Aversive Neutral
* *
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
BM Saline
Open
Arm
(se
c)
32
Figure 12. Number of entries into the open arm of elevated plus maze.
Figure 13. Combined time exploring both objects during metric pattern discrimination.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
BM Saline
Op
en A
rm E
ntr
ies
0
50
100
150
1 2 3 4 5 6Obje
ct E
xp
lora
tio
n (
sec)
Session
BM Saline
33
Figure 14. Difference in time spent exploring objects in the MPD test between final test and last
training session.
Figure 15. Distance travelled with each 5-min time block during locomotor test.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
BM Saline
Tim
e E
xp
lori
ng (
sec)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Dis
tan
ce (
cm)
Time Bin
BM Saline
34
Bibliography
Agster, K. L., & Burwell, R. D. (2013). Hippocampal and subicular efferents and afferents of the
perirhinal, postrhinal, and entorhinal cortices of the rat. Behavioural Brain Research, 254,
50–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2013.07.005
Aimone, J. B., Deng, W., & Gage, F. H. (2011). Resolving New Memories: A Critical Look at
the Dentate Gyrus, Adult Neurogenesis, and Pattern Separation. Neuron, 70(4), 589–596.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.05.010
Amaral, D., & Witter, M. P. (1989). The three-dimensional organization of the hippocampal
formation: A review of anatomical data. Neuroscience, 31(3), 571–591.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4522(89)90424-7
Andersen, P., Bliss, T. V. P., & Skrede, K. K. (1971). Lamellar organization of hippocampal
excitatory pathways. Experimental Brain Research, 13(2), 222–238.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00234087
Bach, D. R., Guitart-Masip, M., Packard, P. A., Miró, J., Falip, M., Fuentemilla, L., & Dolan, R.
J. (2014). Human hippocampus arbitrates approach-avoidance conflict. Current Biology,
24(5), 541–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.01.046
Bannerman, D. M., Bus, T., Taylor, A., Sanderson, D. J., Schwarz, I., Jensen, V., … Sprengel, R.
(2012). Dissecting spatial knowledge from spatial choice by hippocampal NMDA receptor
deletion. Nature Neuroscience, 15(8), 1153–1159. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3166
Bannerman, D. M., Sprengel, R., Sanderson, D. J., McHugh, S. B., Rawlins, J. N. P., Monyer,
H., & Seeburg, P. H. (2014). Hippocampal synaptic plasticity, spatial memory and anxiety.
Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 15(3), 181–92. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3677
Bannerman, D. M., Yee, B. K., Good, M. A., Heupel, M. J., Iversen, S. D., & Rawlins, J. N.
(1999). Double dissociation of function within the hippocampus: a comparison of dorsal,
ventral, and complete hippocampal cytotoxic lesions. Behavioral Neuroscience, 113(6),
1170–1188. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.113.6.1170
Beer, Z., Chwiesko, C., & Sauvage, M. M. (2014). Processing of spatial and non-spatial
35
information reveals functional homogeneity along the dorso-ventral axis of CA3, but not
CA1. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 111, 56–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2014.03.001
Black, A. H., Nadel, L., & O’Keefe, J. (1977). Hippocampal function in avoidance learning and
punishment. Psychological Bulletin, 84(6), 1107–1129. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.84.6.1107
Burgess, N., Maguire, E. A., & O’Keefe, J. (2002). The human hippocampus and spatial and
episodic memory. Neuron, 35(4), 625–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00830-9
Canteras, N. S., & Swanson, L. W. (1992). Projections of the ventral subiculum to the amygdala,
septum, and hypothalamus: A PHAL anterograde tract-tracing study in the rat. Journal of
Comparative Neurology, 324(2), 180–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.903240204
Ciocchi, S., Passecker, J., Malagon-Vina, H., Mikus, N., & Klausberger, T. (2015). Selective
information routing by ventral hippocampal CA1 projection neurons. Science (New York,
N.Y.), 348(6234), 560–563. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa3245
Conrad, C. D. (2008). Chronic stress-induced hippocampal vulnerability: the glucocorticoid
vulnerability hypothesis. Reviews in the Neurosciences, 19(6), 395–411.
https://doi.org/10.1515/REVNEURO.2008.19.6.395
Crespi, L. (1942). Quantitative variation of incentive and performance in the white rat. The
American Journal of Psychology, 55(4), 467–517. https://doi.org/10.2307/1417120
Degroot, A., & Treit, D. (2003). Septal gabaergic and hippocampal cholinergic systems interact
in the modulation of anxiety. Neuroscience, 117(2), 493–501.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4522(02)00651-6
Dong, H.-W., Swanson, L. W., Chen, L., Fanselow, M. S., & Toga, A. W. (2009). Genomic–
anatomic evidence for distinct functional domains in hippocampal field CA1. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(28), 11794–
11799. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0812608106
Fanselow, M. S., & Dong, H. W. (2010). Are the Dorsal and Ventral Hippocampus Functionally
36
Distinct Structures? Neuron, 65(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2009.11.031
Felix-Ortiz, A. C., Beyeler, A., Seo, C., Leppla, C. A., Wildes, C. P., & Tye, K. M. (2013). BLA
to vHPC inputs modulate anxiety-related behaviors. Neuron, 79(4), 658–664.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.06.016
Friedman, D. P., Aggleton, J. P., & Saunders, R. C. (2002). Comparison of hippocampal,
amygdala, and perirhinal projections to the nucleus accumbens: Combined anterograde and
retrograde tracing study in the macaque brain. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 450(4),
345–365. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.10336
Gray, J. A., & Mcnaughton, N. (2000). The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the
Functions of the Septo-Hippocampal System, Second Edition (2nd ed.). Oxfored: Oxford
University Press.
Guzowski, J. F., Knierim, J. J., & Moser, E. I. (2004). Ensemble dynamics of hippocampal
regions CA3 and CA1. Neuron, 44(4), 581–584.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2004.11.003
Hamel, L., Thangarasa, T., Samadi, O., & Ito, R. (2017). Caudal Nucleus Accumbens Core Is
Critical in the Regulation of Cue-Elicited Approach-Avoidance Decisions. Eneuro, 4(1),
ENEURO.0330-16.2017. https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0330-16.2017
Hasselmo, M. E. (2005). The role of hippocampal regions CA3 and CA1 in matching entorhinal
input with retrieval of associations between objects and context: theoretical comment on
Lee et al. (2005). Behavioral Neuroscience, 119(1), 342–5. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-
7044.119.1.342
Hinde, R. A. (1966). Animal behaviour. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Hoge, J., & Kesner, R. (2008). Temporal Processing of Objects, 88(2), 225–231.
Hunsaker, M. R., & Kesner, R. P. (2013). The operation of pattern separation and pattern
completion processes associated with different attributes or domains of memory.
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(1), 36–58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.09.014
37
Hunsaker, M. R., Rosenberg, J. S., & Kesner, R. P. (2008). The role of the dentate gyrus,
CA3a,b, and CA3c for detecting spatial and environmental novelty. Hippocampus, 18(10),
1064–1073. https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.20464
Ishikawa, A., & Nakamura, S. (2006). Ventral Hippocampal Neurons Project Axons
Simultaneously to the Medial Prefrontal Cortex and Amygdala in the Rat. Journal of
Neurophysiology, 96(4), 2134–2138. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00069.2006
Ito, R., & Lee, A. C. H. (2016). The role of the hippocampus in approach-avoidance conflict
decision-making: Evidence from rodent and human studies. Behavioural Brain Research,
313, 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2016.07.039
Jarrard, L. E., Isaacson, R. L., & Wickelgren, W. O. (1964). Effects of Hippocampal Ablation
and Intertrial Interval on Runway Acquisition and Extinction. Journal of Comparative and
Physiological Psychology, 57(3), 442–444. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041639
Johnston, S. T., Shtrahman, M., Parylak, S., Gonçalves, J. T., & Gage, F. H. (2016). Paradox of
pattern separation and adult neurogenesis: A dual role for new neurons balancing memory
resolution and robustness. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 129, 60–68.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2015.10.013
Jung, M. W., Wiener, S. I., & McNaughton, B. L. (1994). Comparison of spatial firing
characteristics of units in dorsal and ventral hippocampus of the rat. The Journal of
Neuroscience : The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 14(12), 7347–7356.
Kesner, R. P. (2013). An analysis of the dentate gyrus function. Behavioural Brain Research,
254, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2013.01.012
Kesner, R. P., & Rolls, E. T. (2015). A computational theory of hippocampal function, and tests
of the theory: New developments. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 48, 92–147.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.11.009
Kheirbek, M. A., Drew, L. J., Burghardt, N. S., Costantini, D. O., Tannenholz, L., Ahmari, S. E.,
… Henl, R. (2013). Differential control of learning and anxiety along the dorsoventral axis
of the dentate gyrus. Neuron, 77(5), 955–968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.12.038
38
Kirk, R. A., Redmon, S. N., & Kesner, R. P. (2016). The Ventral Dentate Gyrus Mediates Pattern
Separation for Reward Value. Behavioral Neuroscience.
https://doi.org/10.1037/bne0000172
Kjelstrup, K. G., Tuvnes, F. A., Steffenach, H.-A., Murison, R., Moser, E. I., & Moser, M.-B.
(2002). Reduced fear expression after lesions of the ventral hippocampus. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(16), 10825–30.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.152112399
Knierim, J. J., & Neunuebel, J. P. (2016). Tracking the flow of hippocampal computation:
Pattern separation, pattern completion, and attractor dynamics. Neurobiology of Learning
and Memory, 129, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2015.10.008
Korotkova, T., Ponomarenko, A., Monaghan, C. K., Poulter, S. L., Cacucci, F., Wills, T., …
Lever, C. (2017). Reconciling the different faces of hippocampal theta: the role of theta
oscillations in cognitive, emotional and innate behaviors. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral
Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.09.004
Lee, A. C. H., Bussey, T. J., Murray, E. A., Saksida, L. M., Epstein, R. A., Kapur, N., …
Graham, K. S. (2005). Perceptual deficits in amnesia: Challenging the medial temporal lobe
“mnemonic” view. Neuropsychologia, 43(1), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.07.017
Lee, A. C. H., Yeung, L.-K., & Barense, M. D. (2012). The hippocampus and visual perception.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(April), 91. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00091
Li, Y., Xu, J., Liu, Y., Zhu, J., Liu, N., Zeng, W., … Zhang, X. (2017). A distinct entorhinal
cortex to hippocampal CA1 direct circuit for olfactory associative learning. Nature
Neuroscience, 20(4). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4517
Lipska, B. K., Jaskiw, G. E., Chrapusta, S., Karoum, F., & Weinberger, D. R. (1992). Ibotenic
acid lesion of the ventral hippocampus differentially affects dopamine and its metabolites in
the nucleus accumbens and prefrontal cortex in the rat. Brain Research, 585(1–2), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(92)91184-G
39
Lisman, J. E., & Grace, A. A. (2005). The hippocampal-VTA loop: Controlling the entry of
information into long-term memory. Neuron, 46(5), 703–713.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2005.05.002
Loh, E., Kurth-Nelson, Z., Berron, D., Dayan, P., Duzel, E., Dolan, R., & Guitart-Masip, M.
(2016). Parsing the Role of the Hippocampus in Approach–Avoidance Conflict. Cerebral
Cortex, (December). https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhw378
Maren, S., & Holt, W. G. (2004). Hippocampus and Pavlovian fear conditioning in rats:
muscimol infusions into the ventral, but not dorsal, hippocampus impair the acquisition of
conditional freezing to an auditory conditional stimulus. Behavioral Neuroscience, 118(1),
97–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.118.1.97
McNaughton, N. (2011). Fear, anxiety and their disorders: Past, present and future neural
theories. Psychology and Neuroscience, 4(2), 173–181.
https://doi.org/10.3922/j.psns.2011.2.002
McNaughton, N., & Corr, P. J. (2014). Approach, avoidance, and their conflict: the problem of
anchoring. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8(July), 2010–2013.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00124
Menard, J., & Treit, D. (1996). Lateral and medial septal lesions reduce anxiety in the plus-maze
and probe-burying tests. Physiology and Behavior, 60(3), 845–853.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9384(96)00138-2
Moser, M. B., & Moser, E. I. (1998). Functional Differentiation in the Hippocampus, 619(2),
1981–1983.
Moser, M. B., Moser, E. I., Forrest, E., Andersen, P., & Morris, R. G. (1995). Spatial learning
with a minislab in the dorsal hippocampus. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 92(21), 9697–701.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.92.21.9697
Nguyen, D., Schumacher, A., Erb, S., & Ito, R. (2015). Aberrant approach-avoidance conflict
resolution following repeated cocaine pre-exposure. Psychopharmacology, 232(19), 3573–
40
3583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-015-4006-y
Niki, H. (1965). The effects of hippocampal ablation on the inhibitory control of operant
behavior in the rat. Japanese Psychological Research, 7(3), 126–137.
O’Neil, E. B., Newsome, R. N., Li, I. H. N., Thavabalasingam, S., Ito, R., & Lee, A. C. H.
(2015). Examining the Role of the Human Hippocampus in Approach-Avoidance Decision
Making Using a Novel Conflict Paradigm and Multivariate Functional Magnetic Resonance
Imaging. Journal of Neuroscience, 35(45), 15039–15049.
https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1915-15.2015
Ohara, S., Sato, S., Tsutsui, K. I., Witter, M. P., & Iijima, T. (2013). Organization of
multisynaptic inputs to the dorsal and ventral dentate gyrus: Retrograde trans-synaptic
tracing with rabies virus vector in the rat. PLoS ONE, 8(11).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078928
Okuyama, T., Kitamura, T., Roy, D. S., Itohara, S., & Tonegawa, S. (2016). Ventral CA1
neurons store social memory, 353(6307).
Padilla-Coreano, N., Bolkan, S. S., Pierce, G. M., Blackman, D. R., Hardin, W. D., Garcia-
Garcia, A. L., … Gordon, J. A. (2016). Direct Ventral Hippocampal-Prefrontal Input Is
Required for Anxiety-Related Neural Activity and Behavior. Neuron, 89(4), 857–866.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.01.011
Parfitt, G. M., Nguyen, R., Bang, J. Y., Aqrabawi, A., Tran, M. M., Seo, D. K., … Kim, J. C.
(2017). Bidirectional Control of Anxiety-Related Behaviours in Mice: Role of Inputs
Arising from the Ventral Hippocampus to the Lateral Septum and Medial Prefrontal Cortex.
Neuropsychopharmacology, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2017.56
Paxinos, G., & Watson, C. (1998). The Rat Brain in Sterotaxic Coordinates (4th ed.). San Diego:
Academic Press, Inc.
Pentkowski, N. S., Blanchard, D. C., Lever, C., Litvin, Y., & Blanchard, R. J. (2006). Effects of
lesions to the dorsal and ventral hippocampus on defensive behaviors in rats. European
Journal of Neuroscience, 23(8), 2185–2196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-
41
9568.2006.04754.x
Pinto, V., Costa, J. C., Morgado, P., Mota, C., Miranda, A., Bravo, F. V., … Sousa, N. (2015).
Differential impact of chronic stress along the hippocampal dorsal-ventral axis. Brain
Structure and Function, 220(2), 1205–1212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-014-0713-0
Poppenk, J., Evensmoen, H. R., Moscovitch, M., & Nadel, L. (2013). Long-axis specialization of
the human hippocampus. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(5), 230–240.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.03.005
Rebola, N., Carta, M., & Mulle, C. (2017). Operation and plasticity of hippocampal CA3
circuits: implications for memory encoding. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(4), 208–220.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2017.10
Risold, P. Y., & Swanson, L. W. (1997). Connections of the rat lateral septal complex. Brain
Research Reviews, 24(2–3), 115–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0173(97)00009-X
Sahay, A., Drew, M. R., & Hen, R. (2007). Dentate gyrus neurogenesis and depression. Progress
in Brain Research, 163, 697–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(07)63038-6
Sahay, A., Wilson, D. A., & Hen, R. (2011). Pattern Separation: A Common Function for New
Neurons in Hippocampus and Olfactory Bulb. Neuron, 70(4), 582–588.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.05.012
Schmelzeis, M. C., & Mittleman, G. (1996). The hippocampus and reward: effects of
hippocampal lesions on progressive-ratio responding. Behav Neurosci, 110(5), 1049–1066.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.110.5.1049
Schumacher, A., Villaruel, F. R., Riaz, S., Lee, A. C. H., & Ito, R. (2017). Ventral hippocampal
CA1 and CA3 differentially mediate learned approach-avoidance conflict processing. eLife,
(Under Review).
Schumacher, A., Vlassov, E., & Ito, R. (2016). The ventral hippocampus, but not the dorsal
hippocampus is critical for learned approach-avoidance decision making. Hippocampus,
26(4), 530–542. https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22542
42
Scoville, W. B., & Milner, B. (1957). Loss of recent memory after bilateral hippocampal lesions.
The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 20(11), 11–21.
https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.20.1.11
Snyder, J. S., Radik, R., Wojtowicz, J. M., & Cameron, H. A. (2009). Anatomical gradients of
adult neurogenesis and activity: Young neurons in the ventral dentate gyrus are activated by
water maze training. Hippocampus, 19(4), 360–370. https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.20525
Strange, B. a, Witter, M. P., Lein, E. S., & Moser, E. I. (2014). Functional organization of the
hippocampal longitudinal axis. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(10), 655–669.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3785
Thompson, C. L., Pathak, S. D., Jeromin, A., Ng, L. L., MacPherson, C. R., Mortrud, M. T., …
Lein, E. S. (2008). Genomic Anatomy of the Hippocampus. Neuron, 60(6), 1010–1021.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.12.008
Tracy, A. L., Jarrard, L. E., & Davidson, T. L. (2001). The hippocampus and motivation
revisited: Appetite and activity. Behavioural Brain Research, 127(1–2), 13–23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4328(01)00364-3
Weeden, C. S. S., Hu, N. J., Ho, L. U. N., & Kesner, R. P. (2014). The role of the ventral dentate
gyrus in olfactory pattern separation. Hippocampus, 24(5), 553–559.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22248
Weeden, C. S. S., Roberts, J. M., Kamm, A. M., & Kesner, R. P. (2015). The role of the ventral
dentate gyrus in anxiety-based behaviors. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 118,
143–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2014.12.002
Witter, M. P. (2007). The perforant path: projections from the entorhinal cortex to the dentate
gyrus. Progress in Brain Research, 163, 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-
6123(07)63003-9
Wu, M. V., & Hen, R. (2014). Functional dissociation of adult-born neurons along the
dorsoventral axis of the dentate gyrus. Hippocampus, 24(7), 751–761.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22265
43
Yamaguchi, T., Danjo, T., Pastan, I., Hikida, T., & Nakanishi, S. (2013). Distinct roles of
segregated transmission of the septo-habenular pathway in anxiety and fear. Neuron, 78(3),
537–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.02.035
Yeckel, M. F., & Berger, T. W. (1990). Feedforward excitation of the hippocampus by afferents
from the entorhinal cortex: redefinition of the role of the trisynaptic pathway. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 87(15), 5832–6.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.87.15.5832
Top Related