Protocol

Mouse visual contrast lick go/no-go task

Head-fixed mice view target and non-target visual stimuli, including variable-contrast conditions, and report the target class by licking or withholding a lick. This is a contrast-family boundary variant: it uses the same visual evidence axis as 2AFC contrast tasks but has asymmetric go/no-go response demands.

Task structure

Stimulus, choice, feedback, and training as declared in the protocol record.

Stimulus

evidence_schedule
Visual target and non-target stimuli are presented during engaged task performance and passive-viewing controls; variable-contrast blocks probe sensitivity to stimulus strength.
evidence_type
static
modalities
visual
notes
—
units
percent contrast
variables
contrast, target identity, task engagement condition

Choice

action_mapping
Licking reports the target or go stimulus; withholding lick reports the non-target or no-go condition.
alternatives
lick, withhold lick
choice_type
go-no-go
notes
—
response_modalities
lick

Feedback

feedback_type
mixed
notes
—
penalty
Protocol-specific penalty or lack of reward for false alarms and misses.
reward
Water reward for correct licks on target trials.

Training

notes
—
stages
lick shaping, target/non-target discrimination, passive-viewing controls

Trial timing

  1. stimulus
    protocol-specific

    Target or non-target visual stimulus is presented.

  2. response
    response-limited

    Mouse licks or withholds licking during the response epoch.

  3. feedback
    outcome-dependent

Expected analyses

  • hit and false-alarm rates by contrast
  • contrast modulation of neural responses
  • task-engaged versus passive-viewing response comparison
  • target/non-target selectivity and choice selectivity

Interpretive claims

  • sensorimotor transformation
    Confidence: medium · ref.pho-2018-task-dependent-parietal

    Go/no-go licking confounds response criterion and action initiation more than symmetric two-choice tasks, so operational response class must stay explicit.

Open questions

  • Decide whether go/no-go contrast tasks should remain in this family or move to a linked contrast-detection subfamily.
  • Search for reusable trial-level data from Pho et al. or closely matched go/no-go contrast datasets.