Embodiment of an artificial limb in mice
Fig 3
Pupil shifts are shorter when the artificial limb is replaced by a white block.
(A) Schematic of the right side of the mouse during the white block experiment (depicted here in yellow for contrast enhancement of the figure). Blue arrow: general direction of the pupillary movement following the threat. (B) Average horizontal movements of the right pupil after the threat, normalized relative to the average position 1 s before the threat (n = 9 mice). Green line: synchronous pairing. Red line: asynchronous pairing. Light background: SEM. Blue arrow: direction of pupil movement as indicated in A. (C) Average difference between the right pupil movements in the two conditions in B. Blue sections: significant differences (Bootstrap-based test p < 0.05). Black dashed line: significance threshold. Gray background: W1 and W2 time windows selected for further quantification. (D) Average values of the profiles displayed in B in the time windows W1 and W2 for all mice. (E) Average time course of the difference in the right pupil response to the threat between synchronous and asynchronous pairings with the artificial limb (magenta line), and with the white block (yellow line). Light background: SEM. (F) Difference in sync/async contrast in threat response, as computed in E, between the artificial limb and the white block conditions. Blue sections: significant differences (Bootstrap-based test p < 0.05). Black dashed line: significance threshold. Gray background: time windows selected for further quantification. (G) Average values of the profiles displayed in E in the time window identified in F, for all mice. (H) Same as A–G for the left pupil. The data and code underlying this figure is available in the following repository: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14635566.