Reporting Checklist for Nature Neuroscience

Transcription

1 Corresponding Author: Manuscript Number: Manuscript Type: Jeffrey C. Magee NNA726 Article Reporting Checklist for Nature Neuroscience # Main Figures: 7 # em Figures: 14 # em s: # em Videos: This checklist is used to ensure good reporting standards and to improve the reproducibility of published results. For more information, please read Reporting Life Sciences Research. Please note that in the event of publication, it is mandatory that authors include all relevant methodological and statistical information in the manuscript. Statistics reporting, by figure example example Please specify the following information for each panel reporting quantitative data, and where each item is reported (section, e.g. Results, & paragraph number). Each figure should ideally contain an exact sample size (n) for each experimental group/condition, where n is an exact number and not a range, a clear definition of how n is defined (for example x cells from x slices from x animals from x litters, collected over x days), a description of the statistical use the results of the s, any descriptive statistics and clearly defined error bars if applicable. For any experiments using custom statistics, please indicate the used and stats obtained for each experiment. Each figure should include a stat of how many times the experiment shown was replicated in the lab; the details of sample collection should be sufficiently clear so that the replicability of the experiment is obvious to the reader. For experiments reported in the text but not in the figures, please use the paragraph number instead of the figure number. Note: Mean and standard deviation are not appropriate on small samples, and plotting independent data points is usually more informative. When technical replicates are reporte error and significance measures reflect the experimental variability and not the variability of the biological process; it is misleading not to state this clearly. FIGURE NUMBER 1a para 6 TEST USED WHICH TEST? oneway ANOVA unpaired t Results para 6 EXACT VALUE 9, 9, 10, 1 n DEFINED? mice from at least litters/group 1 slices from 10 mice Methods para 8 Results para 6 DESCRIPTIVE STATS (AVERAGE, VARIANCE) REPORTED? error bars are mean / SEM error bars are mean / SEM Results para 6 P VALUE EXACT VALUE p = p = Results para 6 DEGREES OF FREEDOM & F/t/z/R/ETC VALUE VALUE F(, 6) = 2.97 t(28) = Results para 6 2h 4(pyr)/ 27 (int) 4 pyramidal /27 inter 61±0.4 mv ±0. mv 8.9e11 1

2 FIGURE NUMBER 2i resul ts, para 1 e h resul ts, para 2 4e, 4e, midd le TEST USED WHICH TEST? t t t para 1 para 2 EXACT VALUE 4(pyr)/ 27 (int) 4 (pyr) 2 (int) n DEFINED? 4 pyramidal /27 inter 4 pyramidal /2 inter 9 animals for bin110: 27,26,27, 27,28, 1, 0, 1, 27, 2 for bin110: 27,26,27, 27,28, 1, 0, 1, 27, 2 para 1 para 2, eme nt, eme nt DESCRIPTIVE STATS (AVERAGE, VARIANCE) REPORTED? 26.± ±0. firing rate: 92±1 vs. 22±4; slow Vm: 88±2 vs. 4±1; thetavm: 41±2 vs. 2±2 2.±9.0, 12.4±8.2 2±1, 2±1 7.41± ±0.2 bin1: 1.1±0.2 vs..2±0.4; bin2: 0.7 ±0.2 vs..0±0.4; bin: 1.±0.2 vs. 4.4±0.; bin4: 2.8 ±0. vs. 6.9±0.9; bin: 4.8±0.6 vs. 8.±0.9; bin6: 6.2 ±0.7 vs. 9.2±0.7; bin7:.±0.6 vs. 8.4±0.6; bin8: 4.1 ±0. vs. 6.8±0.6; bin9: 2.9±0. vs..±0.6; bin10: 1.7 ±0. vs. 4.0±0.6 bin1: 1.17±0.06 vs. 1.9±0.08; bin2: 1.16±0.06 vs. 1.2 ±0.08; bin: 1.22 ±0.0 vs ±0.11; bin4: 1.49 ±0.07 vs ±0.10; bin: 1.70 ±0.07 vs. 2.0 ±0.11; bin6: 1.89 ±0.08 vs ±0.09; bin7: 1.79 ±0.08 vs ±0.10; bin8: 1.6 ±0.08 vs ±0.11; bin9: 1.46 ±0.08 vs. 1.7 ±0.10; bin10: 1.27 ±0.07 vs ±0.09 result s, para1 result s, para 2 P VALUE EXACT VALUE 9.1e11 firing rate: 7.e11 slow Vm: 9.e11 theta Vm: 9.e correcte for bin 110: 8.2E07, 6.0E07, 9.9E08, 9.9E08, 9.9E08, 2.8E06,.1E07, 2.8E06, 1.E0,.8E06 correcte for bin 110: 0.00, 0.06, , 0.001, 0.001, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.002, 0.02 para 2, em, em DEGREES OF FREEDOM & F/t/z/R/ETC VALUE VALUE t(8)=6.00 t(2)=0.748 t(4)=0.489 d para 2 2

3 4e, 4f 4g resul ts, para midd le e i, i, ts ts ts s t t para Fig for bin110: 27,26,27, 27,28, 1, 0, 1, 27, 2 1, 24 1, 24 4, , eme nt para bin1: 0.8±0.2 vs..2±0.9; bin2: 0.8 ±0.2 vs..1±0.8; bin: 1.7±0. vs. 6.±1.2; bin4:.6 ±0. vs. 11.2±1.7; bin: 6.0±0.7 vs. 1.0±1.4; bin6: 7.6 ±0.8 vs. 1.8±1.2; bin7:.0±0.6 vs. 10.6±1.1; bin8:.±0.6 vs. 7.±1.0; bin9: 2.1 ±0.4 vs..7±0.9; bin10: 1.±0.4 vs..7± ±0.4 vs. 9.4±0..1±0.2 vs..1± ±0.0 vs. 0.2 ±0.06; 0.01±0.01 vs. 0.1±0.0 firing rate: 92±1 vs. 78±4; slow Vm: 88±2 vs. 60±4; theta Vm: 41±2 vs. 1±4 Out:0.017 ±0.096,2.08 ±0.016; In:6.088 ±0.11,9.62 ±0.09 Out:0.760 ±0.022,1.068 ±0.041; In:1.887 ±0.066,2.6 ±0.024 Out:0.000 ±0.000,0.682 ±0.19; In: ±0.772,.82 ±0.498 Out:0.98 ±0.016,2.21 ±0.097; In:4.892 ±0.078,.72 ± ±0.01,0.8 ± ±0.9,.8±1.8 result, para result s, para6, leg end correcte for bin 110: , 0.002,.8E06, 2.7E06, 2.E06,.8E06, 2.7E06, 2.8E0, 8.E06, e7 2.7e e Out:<0.0001, In:< Out: , In: Out: , In:< Out: ,In: , em para para6, d Out: t(4)=7.186 In: t(4)=2.421 Out: t(4)= In: t(4)=.76 Out: t(4)=4.00 In: t(4)= Out: t(4)= In: t(4)=10.08 t(7)=4.969 t(7)=6.047 para6, d 7e t 8 126±1,± t(7)=.09 7f t 8 170±22, ± t(7=6.19

4 7i 7j S 1e S 1f S 9b, S 9b, midd le S 9b, S 9c, S 9c, S 10a, ts ts 2,1 2, 1 2, 29 2, 29 2, for bin 110: 12,12,12, 10,11,12, 11,11,11, 11, eme nt Original: ±.19,6.00 ±.781; Shifted inh: ±0.984,1.714 ±2.00 Original: ±18.1, ±7.270; Shifted inh:4.471 ±2.28, ± ± vs. 2± 64± vs. 64± 8.1±0.8 vs. 9.4± ±0.7 vs. 6.6±1. 2.0±0.10 vs. 2.1 ± ±0.7 vs. 9.2±0.7 0.±0.1 vs..1± ±0.08 vs. 2.2 ±0.08; 1.07±0.04 vs. 1.8± ±0.8 vs. 1.2 ±1.1; 0.±0.1 vs..±0.8.0±0. vs..1±0.6.±0. vs..1± ±0.02 vs. 0.1± ±0.08 vs. 0.2±0.08 bin1: 0.9±0. vs..0±0.; bin2: 0.4 ±0.1 vs. 2.9±0.; bin: 1.0±0. vs. 4.2±0.7; bin4: 2. ±0. vs. 6.7±1.0; bin:.7±0.6 vs. 6.9±0.9; bin6: 4.9 ±0.7 vs 7.±0.8; bin7: 4.0±0.9 vs. 7.0±1.0; bin8:.2 ±0.9 vs..6±0.7; bin9: 2.4±0.7 vs. 4.4±0.8; bin10: 1.4 ±0.6 vs..±0.9 Original: ;Shifted inh: Original: ,Shifted inh: e8 9.e e 4.7e9 2.e correcte for bin , 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.014, 0.00, 0.009, 0.02, 0.009, em Original: t(4)=.7026 Shifted: t(4)=.29 Original: t(4)=2.968 Shifted: t(4)=

5 S 10a, midd le S 10a, midd le S 10a, S 10b, legnd for bin 110: 12,12,12, 10,11,12, 11,11,11, 11 for bin 110: 12,12,12, 10,11,12, 11,11,11, 11 11, 11 for bin 110: 1,14,1, 17,17,19, 19,20,16, 14, eme nt, eme nt, eme nt bin1: 1.21±0.10 vs. 1.46±0.1; bin2: 1.14±0.07 vs ±0.1; bin: 1.22 ±0.09 vs. 1. ±0.16; bin4: 1.4 ±0.10 vs ±0.14; bin: 1.61 ±0.08 vs ±0.1; bin6: 1.79 ±0.09 vs ±0.14; bin7: 1.66 ±0.11 vs. 2.0 ±0.19; bin8: 1.7 ±0.14 vs ±0.19; bin9: 1.44 ±0.11 vs ±0.11; bin10: 1.2 ±0.10 vs ±0.12 bin1: 0.8±0. vs..8±1.7; bin2: 0.7 ±0.2 vs..8±1.; bin: 1.7±0.4 vs. 7.4±2.1; bin4:.6 ±0.7 vs. 12.0±2.1; bin:.9±1.1 vs 11.±2.1; bin6: 6.9 ±1.1 vs. 12.1±2.4; bin7: 4.7±1.1 vs. 10.±2.6; bin8:.4 ±1.1 vs. 7.±1.9; bin9: 2.±0.7 vs..7±1.; bin10: 1.6 ±0.7 vs. 4.2± ±0.71 vs ±1.0.46±0.40 vs..9 ±1.0 bin1: 1.±0.2 vs..±0.6; bin2: 1.0 ±0. vs..1±0.6; bin: 1.6±0.4 vs. 4.±0.6; bin4:.2 ±0.7 vs. 7.0±1.; bin:.4±1.0 vs. 9.±1.4; bin6: 7.1 ±0.9 vs. 10.4±1.0; bin7: 6.0±0.8 vs. 9.2±0.7; bin8: 4.7 ±0.7 vs. 7.±0.8; bin9:.±0.7 vs. 6.2±0.9; bin10: 2.0 ±0.4 vs. 4.±0.8 correcte for bin , 0.19, 0.047, 0.0, 0.047, 0.047, 0.047, 0.047, 0.0, 0.0 correcte for bin 110: 0.04, 0.08, 0.017, 0.017, 0.017, 0.02, 0.017, 0.020, 0.02, correcte for bin 110: 0.000, , , , , , , , 0.000, , em, em, em

6 S 10b, midd le S 10b, midd le S 10b, S 10c, S 10c midd le, S 10c midd le S 10c, for bin 110: 1,14,1, 17,17,19, 19,20,16, 14 for bin 110: 1,14,1, 17,17,19, 19,20,16, 14 20, 1 12, 20, 1, 16 12, 20, 1, 16 12, 20, 1, 16 11,20,11, 1, eme nt bin1: 1.14±0.07 vs. 1.4±0.09; bin2: 1.18±0.08 vs. 1.8 ±0.11; bin: 1.21 ±0.06 vs ±0.1; bin4: 1.1 ±0.09 vs ±0.14; bin: 1.76 ±0.10 vs. 2.1 ±0.16; bin6: 1.9 ±0.11 vs ±0.11; bin7: 1.87 ±0.11 vs ±0.10; bin8: 1.70 ±0.09 vs. 1.9 ±0.1; bin9: 1.47 ±0.11 vs ±0.1; bin10: 1.0 ±0.09 vs ±0.14 bin1: 0.9±0. vs. 2.8±0.9; bin2: 0.9 ±0. vs. 2.6±0.8; bin: 1.8±0. vs..9±1.4; bin4:. ±0.8 vs. 10.7±2.4; bin: 6.0±1.0 vs. 14.0±1.8; bin6: 8.1 ±1.1 vs. 14.8±1.; bin7:.2±0.8 vs. 10.7±1.1; bin8:. ±0.7 vs. 7.4±1.1; bin9: 1.9±0.6 vs..7±1.1; bin10: 1.2 ±0.4 vs..± ±0.49 vs ± ±0.27 vs ± ±0. vs..2± ±0.6 vs. 2.8± ±0.12 vs ± ±0.11 vs ± ±1.9 vs. 7.4±1.1.2±1. vs. 2.± ±0.6 vs. 2.6±0.6 2.±1.0 vs. 1.6±0. correcte for bin 110: 0.047, 0.047, 0.001, 0.047, 0.019, 0.047, 0.047, 0.047, 0.047, correcte for bin 110: 0.026, 0.017, 0.000, 0.001, , , , 0.002, , , em, em 6

7 S 11c S 11d S 11g Sfig. 1a, Sfig. 1a, Sfig. 1b,c Sfig. 14c, Sfig. 14c, ts t t t t for bin 110: 12 for bin 110: 10,10,10, 9,10,10, 11, 11, 11, 11 1, 24, eme nt, eme nt bin1: 64.0±.0 vs. 69.±.7; bin2: 61.6±2.6 vs ±4.2; bin: 61.9 ±2.7 vs. 69.6±.8; bin4: 61.0±2.8 vs. 64.9±.; bin: 8.±2.7 vs ±.; bin6: 9.8 ±2.8 vs. 66.±2.8; bin7: 61.±.2 vs. 69.±4.1; bin8: 62.±2.9 vs. 66. ±.; bin9: 62.9 ±2.4 vs. 69.2±.; bin10: 64.0±.2 vs. 68.9±.9 bin1: 62.6±.8 vs. 68.±.0; bin2: 60.8±.9 vs ±.4; bin: 60.6 ±.8 vs. 69.4±.; bin4: 62.1±.4 vs. 67.9±4.; bin: 61.7±4.0 vs ±4.9; bin6: 61.6 ±2.6 vs. 71.2±.7; bin7: 6.±.0 vs. 72.0±4.1; bin8: 61.6±2. vs ±4.4; bin9: 6.0 ±.7 vs. 69.1±.9; bin10: 62.6±. vs. 71.2±6.2 40±2 vs. 46±2 4±2 vs. 40±2 Out:0.014 ±0.024,1.19 ±0.04; In:.47 ±0.0440,7.049 ±0.08 Out:0.644 ±0.011,0.878 ±0.0298; In:1.204 ±0.02,1.402 ± ±0.280,1.906 ±0.44 Out:0.068 ±0.09,.26 ±0.107; In:6.0 ±0.076,10.29 ±0.080 Out:1.46 ±0.048,2.120 ±0.096; In:2.19 ±0.068,.272 ±0.098 correcte for bin110: 0.019, 0.006, 0.009, 0.027, 0.011, 0.017, 0.001, 0.244, 0.009, correcte for bin110: 0.027, 0.016, 0.010, 0.01, 0.010, 0.016, 0.017, 0.017, 0.021, Out:<0.0001, In:< Out: , In: < Out:<0.0001, In:< Out: , In: , em, em Out: t(4)=8.674 In: t(4)=.004 Out: t(4)=7.096 In: t(4)=4.917 t(4)=1.84 Out: t(4)=60.72 In: t(4)= Out: t(4)=7.001 In: t(4)=6.68 7

8 Sfig. 14 e Sfig. 14f f g t t t t Representative figures 1. Are any representative images shown (including Western blots and immunohistochemistry/staining) in the paper? If so, what figure(s)? 2. For each representative image, is there a clear stat of how many times this experiment was successfully repeated and a discussion of any limitations in repeatability? If so, where is this reported (section, paragraph #)? Out:0.98 ±0.226,9.68 ±0.400; In: ±0.,.02 ±0.7 Out:2.12 ±0.060,4.86 ±0.14; In:.08 ±0.090,7.647 ±0.174 AMPAR Out: 0.29±0.001 vs ±0.001; In:0.77±0.002 vs. 0.2±0.002 NMDAR Out:0.206±0.00 vs ±0.001; In: 0.0±0.00 vs ±0.008 GABAR Out:0.279 ±0.001 vs ±0.001; In:0.49 ±0.002 vs ±0.002 E:I Out:1.94 ±0.007 vs ±0.008; In: ±0.006 vs ±0.007 Out: 0.4±0.010 vs. 0.49±0.007; In: 0.894±0.008 vs ±0.012 Out:<0.0001, In:< Out:<0.0001, In: AMPAR Out: ; In: < NMDAR Out: <0.0001; In: GABAR Out:<0.0001; In: < E:I Out: <0.0001; In:< Out: p=0.024 In: p= yes, fig. 2b, b, em 1ad Out: t(4)=2.779 In: t(4)= Out: t(4)= In: t(4)=10.04 AMPAR Out: t(4)=6.901 In: t(4)=18.84 NMDAR Out: t(4)=21.97 In: t(4)=14.60 GABAR Out: t(4)= In: t(4)== E:I Out: t(4)=81.1 In: t(4)= Out: t(4)=.4717 In: t(4)=0.88 Fig 2b. no, since not every neuron that we recorded from was necessarily filled and posthoc recovered. However, this does not change any of the conclusions and all included in this study are listed in two em s 1&2. b: in total 10 mice were imaged and a representative image was chosen. This is stated in the figure. em 1ad: this experiment was repeated two times for each genotype. This is stated in the figure. This number is relatively low because our results are fully consistent with the literature (e.g. Bloss et al., 2016, LovettBaron et al. 2012). We cite those studies in our manuscript. 8

9 Statistics and general methods 1. Is there a justification of the sample size? If so, how was it justified? Even if no sample size calculation was performe authors should report why the sample size is adequate to measure their effect size. 2. Are statistical s justified as appropriate for every figure? a. If there is a section summarizing the statistical methods in the methods, is the statistical for each experiment clearly defined? b. Do the data meet the assumptions of the specific statistical you chose (e.g. normality for a parametric )? Where is this described (section, paragraph #)? c. Is there any estimate of variance within each group of data? Is the variance similar between groups that are being statistically compared? Where is this described (section, paragraph #)? d. Are s specified as one or twosided? yes no statistical methods were used to predetermine the sample size. Given the difficulty of establishing long lasting wholecell recordings we were limited by the number of experiments, but our sample sizes typically had a statistical power sufficient to detect differences on the order of our effect sizes. overall we have examined the distributions of our measures and where they were found to be normal we used a twosided t to make comparisons. When normality was uncertain or borderline we used nonparametric s. This is clearly stated in the text or in the figure s. yes, each is either mentioned in the main text or in the figure s. yes, there is a paragraph in the Online Methods section on statistical methods. yes, yes, there is a paragraph in the Online Methods section on statistical methods. e. Are there adjustments for multiple comparisons? yes, if necess (for example 4e, em 10a and b, em 11 cd). To promote transparency, Nature Neuroscience has stopped allowing bar graphs to report statistics in the papers it publishes. If you have bar graphs in your paper, please make sure to switch them to dotplots (with central and dispersion statistics displayed) or to boxandwhisker plots to show data distributions. done 9

10 4. Are criteria for excluding data points reported? Was this criterion established prior to data collection? Where is this described (section, paragraph #)?. Define the method of randomization used to assign subjects (or samples) to the experimental groups and to collect and process data. If no randomization was use state so. Where does this appear (section, paragraph #)? 6. Is a stat of the extent to which investigator knew the group allocation during the experiment and in assessing outcome included? If no blinding was done, state so. 7. For experiments in live vertebrates, is a stat of compliance with ethical guidelines/regulations included? 8. Is the species of the animals used reported? 9. Is the strain of the animals (including background strains of KO/ transgenic animals used) reported? 10. Is the sex of the animals/subjects used reported? 11. Is the age of the animals/subjects reported? 12. For animals housed in a vivarium, is the light/dark cycle reported? We used the following criteria: Recordings were either aborte or otherwise excluded from further analysis if access resistance exceeded a predefined threshold (>6 MΩ for pyramidal, >100 MΩ for inter). This criterion was established prior to data collection. This is stated in the Online Methods, section on 'In vivo electrophysiology'. For the analysis of the effect of Arch activation on the place cell activity only with at least laps of Arch application were included. This criterion was not established prior to data collection. This is stated in the Online Methods, section on data analysis, end of paragraph 1. We are comparing on a single neuron level control laps and laps with optogenetic manipulation of interneuronal activity. During the experiments we alternated between control laps (blocks of 1 laps) and laps with Arch activation (blocks of 1 laps) either in or out of the neuron's place field. We did not use any form of randomization. This is now stated in the Online Methods, section on 'Optogenetic suppression of synaptic inhibition'. no blinding was done. there is a stat about it in the Online Methods section. yes, in the Online Methods section, first sentence yes, in the Online Methods section, paragraph 1 yes, in the Online Methods, section on 'Optogenetic suppression of synaptic inhibition'. yes, in the Online Methods section, paragraph 1 yes, in the Online Methods section, paragraph 1 yes, in the Online Methods section, paragraph 1 10

11 1. For animals housed in a vivarium, is the housing group (i.e. number of animals per cage) reported? 14. For behavioral experiments, is the time of day reported (e.g. light or dark cycle)? 1. Is the previous history of the animals/subjects (e.g. prior drug administration, surgery, behavioral ing) reported? a. If multiple behavioral s were conducted in the same group of animals, is this reported? 16. If any animals/subjects were excluded from analysis, is this reported? Reagents a. How were the criteria for exclusion defined? Where is this described (section, paragraph #)? b. Specify reasons for any discrepancy between the number of animals at the beginning and end of the study. Where is this described (section, paragraph #)? 1. Have antibodies been validated for use in the system under study (assay and species)? a. Is antibody catalog number given? Where does this appear (section, paragraph #)? b. Where were the validation data reported (citation, supplem information, Antibodypedia)? Where does this appear (section, paragraph #)? 2. Cell line identity a. Are any cell lines used in this paper listed in the database of commonly misidentified cell lines maintained by ICLAC and NCBI Biosample? no Experiments were done during the animals' dark cyle. This is mentioned in the Online Methods section, paragraph 1. yes, in the Online Methods section, paragraph 1&2 not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable 11

12 b. If yes, include in the Methods section a scientific justification of their useindicate here in which section and paragraph the justification can be found. c. For each cell line, include in the Methods section a stat that specifies: the source of the cell lines have the cell lines been authenticated? If so, by which method? have the cell lines been ed for mycoplasma contamination? Data availability Provide a Data availability stat in the Methods section under "Data availability", which should include, where applicable: Accession codes for deposited data Other unique identifiers (such as DOIs and hyperlinks for any other datasets) At a minimum, a stat confirming that all relevant data are available from the authors Formal citations of datasets that are assigned DOIs A stat regarding data available in the manuscript as source data A stat regarding data available with restrictions See our data availability and data citations policy page for more information. Data deposition in a public repository is mandatory for: a. Protein, DNA and RNA sequences b. Macromolecular structures c. Crystallographic data for small molecules d. Microarray data Deposition is strongly recommended for many other datasets for which structured public repositories exist; more details on our data policy are available here. We encourage the provision of other source data in supplem information or in unstructured repositories such as Figshare and Dryad. We encourage publication of Data Descriptors (see Scientific Data) to maximize data reuse. Where is the Data Availability stat provided (section, paragraph #)? we included a data availability stat. It states that all relevant data will be available upon request per . 12

13 Computer code/software Any custom algorithm/software that is central to the methods must be supplied by the authors in a usable and readable form for readers at the time of publication. However, referees may ask for this information at any time during the review process. 1. Identify all custom software or scripts that were required to conduct the study and where in the procedures each was used. 2. If computer code was used to generate results that are central to the paper's conclusions, include a stat in the Methods section under "Code availability" to indicate whether and how the code can be accessed. Include version information as necess and any restrictions on availability. Human subjects 1. Which IRB approved the protocol? Where is this stated (section, paragraph #)? 2. Is demographic information on all subjects provided?. Is the number of human subjects, their age and sex clearly defined? 4. Are the inclusion and exclusion criteria (if any) clearly specified?. How well were the groups matched? Where is this information described (section, paragraph #)? 6. Is a stat included confirming that informed consent was obtained from all subjects? 7. For publication of patient photos, is a stat included confirming that consent to publish was obtained? Custom software used for conducting data analysis and computational modeling are described in the Methods section. The URL to access the code repository is referenced in the Methods section. All code necess to run the computer simulations, and instructions on how to install the required software are provided in the repository. 1

14 fmri studies For papers reporting functional imaging (fmri) results please ensure that these minimal reporting guidelines are met and that all this information is clearly provided in the methods: 1. Were any subjects scanned but then rejected for the analysis after the data was collected? a. If yes, is the number rejected and reasons for rejection described? 2. Is the number of blocks, trials or experimental units per session and/ or subjects specified?. Is the length of each trial and interval between trials specified? 4. Is a blocke eventrelate or mixed design being used? If applicable, please specify the block length or how the eventrelated or mixed design was optimized.. Is the task design clearly described? 6. How was behavioral performance measured? 7. Is an ANOVA or factorial design being used? 8. For data acquisition, is a whole brain scan used? If not, state area of acquisition. a. How was this region determined? 9. Is the field strength (in Tesla) of the MRI system stated? a. Is the pulse sequence type (gradient/spin echo, EPI/spiral) stated? b. Are the fieldofview, matrix size, slice thickness, and TE/TR/ flip angle clearly stated? 10. Are the software and specific parameters (model/functions, smoothing kernel size if applicable, etc.) used for data processing and preprocessing clearly stated? 14

15 11. Is the coordinate space for the anatomical/functional imaging data clearly defined as subject/native space or standardized stereotaxic space, e.g., original Talairach, MNI0, ICBM12, etc? Where (section, paragraph #)? 12. If there was data normalization/standardization to a specific space template, are the type of transformation (linear vs. nonlinear) used and image types being transformed clearly described? Where (section, paragraph #)? 1. How were anatomical locations determine e.g., via an automated labeling algorithm (AAL), standardized coordinate database (Talairach daemon), probabilistic atlases, etc.? 14. Were any additional regressors (behavioral covariates, motion etc) used? 1. Is the contrast construction clearly defined? 16. Is a mixed/random effects or fixed inference used? a. If fixed effects inference use is this justified? 17. Were repeated measures used (multiple measurs per subject)? a. If so, are the method to account for within subject correlation and the assumptions made about variance clearly stated? 18. If the threshold used for inference and visualization in figures varies, is this clearly stated? 19. Are statistical inferences corrected for multiple comparisons? a. If not, is this labeled as uncorrected? 20. Are the results based on an ROI (region of interest) analysis? a. If so, is the rationale clearly described? b. How were the ROI s defined (functional vs anatomical localization)? 21. Is there correction for multiple comparisons within each voxel? 22. For clusterwise significance, is the clusterdefining threshold and the corrected significance level defined? 1

16 Additional comments Additional Comments 16