Fig. 6

Deficits in attention but not visual discrimination revealed by touchscreen testing after rmTBI. a–c Paired visual discrimination. a Task acquisition: trials required to reach criteria (> 80% correct responses on 2 consecutive days). b All the mice received 2 sessions of baseline testing (B1, B2) before being randomly assigned to sham or injury group. After 2-week recovery, the mice were re-baselined for 2 sessions (B3, B4), then preform the reversed task contingencies (the previous S + became S−; and the previous S− the S+) for 10 days (R1–R10). The choice of accuracy was compared between sham and rmTBI. c At 6-week post rmTBI, all the mice received 2 sessions of baseline testing. Then the task contingencies were reversed again (back to the original S+ and S−). The mice were tested with 3 mini-sessions (10 trials per day, R1–R3), then followed by full sessions for 10 days (20 trials per day, R4–R13). The performance levels were compared between two groups. n = 15 for rmTBI group; n = 14 for shams. d-f 5-choice Serial Reaction Time Testing (5-CSRTT) performance probe trials with 1.5-, 1.0-, 0.8- and 0.6-second stimulus durations. After completion of the training, mice were randomized to either sham or rmTBI injury group. The probe trials were carried out at 2 w (d), 6 w (e) and 10 w post rmTBI (f), respectively. The response accuracy was compared between sham and rmTBI groups. n=10 for rmTBI; n=8 for shams. * denotes statistically significant difference from shams, p<0.05; F(3,45 = 2.861; 2-way ANOVA)