Fig. 8

Antagonizing D1 receptors in the vHPC impacts theta phase synchrony dynamics in specific circuits between the HPC, mPFC, and VTA. a-d The SCH group exhibited increased theta phase synchrony in the vHPC-mPFC, and vHPC-VTA circuits during novelty exposure compared with the vehicle group (a: time x group, P = 0.9; time, P = 0.06; group, P = 0.007; b: SCH vs. Veh at 1 min: P = 0.03; SCH vs. Veh at 10 min: P = 0.1; SCH 1- vs. 10min: P = 0.2; Veh 1- vs. 10min: P = 0.1; c: time x group, P = 0.3; time, P = 0.03; group, P = 0.003; d: SCH vs. Veh at 1 min: P = 0.005; SCH vs. Veh at 10 min: P = 0.07; SCH 1- vs. 10min: P = 0.3; Veh 1- vs. 10min: P = 0.02). e & f Both groups of mice displayed similar VTA-mPFC theta phase synchrony (e: time x group, P = 0.8; time, P = 0.0004; group, P = 0.2; f: SCH vs. Veh at 1 min: P = 0.8; SCH vs. Veh at 10 min: P = 0.9; SCH 1- vs. 10min: P = 0.02; Veh 1- vs. 10min: P = 0.02). g & h The SCH group showed decreased vHPA-dHPC theta phase synchrony (g: time x group, P = 0.5; time, P = 0.5; group, P = 0.03; h: SCH vs. Veh at 1 min: P = 0.03; SCH vs. Veh at 10 min: P = 0.1; SCH 1- vs. 10min: P = 0.8; Veh 1- vs. 10min: P = 0.7). Two-way RM ANOVA for (a, c, e, g). 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. Data are represented as mean ± SEM