1. Volume 28, Issue 8, Pages 1318-1324.e4 (April 2018)
Ventral Hippocampal CA1 and CA3 Differentially Mediate Learned Approach-Avoidance Conflict Processing 
Anett Schumacher, Franz R. Villaruel, Alicia Ussling, Sadia Riaz, Andy C.H. Lee, Rutsuko Ito 
Current Biology 
Volume 28, Issue 8, Pages e4 (April 2018)
DOI: /j.cub
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

2. Figure 1 Non-spatial Cue-Based Learned Approach-Avoidance Paradigm
There were four different phases. Habituation (not shown): rodents were exposed to the radial arm apparatus and visuotactile cues. Conditioning: rodents learned the outcomes (appetitive, aversive, or neutral) associated with three visuotactile cues. To minimize the use of spatial information, the positions of the cues were changed across conditioning sessions, with the maze rotated left or right by varying degrees (60°, 120°, or 180°) between each session, and the entire maze was covered with red cellophane film to block the visibility of extra-maze cues. Acquisition test: rodents were assessed on their learning of the outcomes associated with each cue. Conflict test: rodents were presented with a superimposition of positive and negative cues in one arm and a neutral cue in another arm.
Current Biology  , e4DOI: ( /j.cub )
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

3. Figure 2 Hippocampal Microinfusion Sites
Representative photographic and schematic diagrams showing the location of the injector tips relative to bregma and the spread of fluoro-conjugated muscimol (75 ng/0.3 μL) visualised with a FITC filter in the dorsal and ventral CA1 and CA3 of the hippocampus of rats included in the data analysis.
Current Biology  , e4DOI: ( /j.cub )
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

4. Figure 3 Approach-Avoidance Paradigm Data
(A) Time spent with two combined cues subsequently assigned as appetitive and aversive (i.e., mimicking final conflict cue) and the cue subsequently assigned as neutral cue during final habituation session.
(B) Time spent in arms with appetitive, aversive, and neutral cues during a test of concurrent conditioned cue preference and avoidance. For (A) and (B), rats were to receive either muscimol/baclofen (M/B) or saline (SAL) immediately prior to the conflict test in ventral CA1 or CA3 (left) or dorsal CA1 or CA3 (right).
(C) Time spent in arms containing cues of conflicting valence (superimposed appetitive and aversive cues) or neutral cues during the conflict test following administration of M/B or saline SAL in ventral CA1 or CA3 (left) or dorsal CA1 or CA3 hippocampus (right). ∗∗∗p <
(D) Number of full-body entries into the arms containing the conflict cue or neutral cue following administration of M/B or SAL in ventral CA1 or CA3 (left) or dorsal CA1 or CA3 hippocampus (right). ∗∗p = 0.01.
(E) Number of retreats from the arms containing the conflict cue or neutral cue following administration of M/B or SAL in ventral CA1 or CA3 (left) or dorsal CA1 or CA3 hippocampus (right).
(F) Behavior (time spent) of ventral hippocampal group rats on separate conditioned cue approach and avoidance tests administered subsequent to the conflict test. All data are represented as mean ± SEM, and data points of individual rats are shown.
Current Biology  , e4DOI: ( /j.cub )
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions