Fig. 4

Novelty exposure impacts theta phase synchrony dynamics in specific circuits between the HPC, mPFC, and VTA. a Schematic of extracting theta phase angle differences to measure phase synchrony between two regions. b-g The novel group exhibited decreased theta phase synchrony in the vHPC-mPFC, vHPC-VTA, and VTA-mPFC circuits at 1 min, which gradually recovered during arena exposure compared with the familiar group (b: time x group, P < 0.0001; time, P = 0.1; group, P = 0.2; c: familiar vs. novel at 1 min: P = 0.03; familiar vs. novel at 10 min: P = 0.9; familiar 1- vs. 10min: P = 0.4; novel 1- vs. 10min: P = 0.008; d: time x group, P = 0.01; time, P = 0.1; group, P = 0.05; e: familiar vs. novel at 1 min: P = 0.03; familiar vs. novel at 10 min: P = 0.9; familiar 1- vs. 10min: P = 0.9; novel 1- vs. 10min: P = 0.008; f: time x group, P < 0.0001; time, P = 0.08; group, P = 0.03; g: familiar vs. novel at 1 min: P = 0.002; familiar vs. novel at 10 min: P = 0.9; familiar 1- vs. 10min: P = 0.4; novel 1- vs. 10min: P = 0.008). h-i Both groups of mice displayed similar vHPC-dHPC theta phase synchrony during arena exposure (h: time x group, P = 0.3; time, P = 0.2; group, P = 0.4; i: familiar vs. novel at 1 min: P = 0.9; familiar vs. novel at 10 min: P = 0.9; familiar 1- vs. 10min: P = 0.4; novel 1- vs. 10min: P = 0.7). Two-way RM ANOVA for (b, d, f, h). Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Dunn’s post-hoc test for between group analysis, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test for within group analysis. N.S., not significant. * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.005, *** P < 0.0005. Data are represented as mean ± SEM