Since adolescent cognitive training improved
adult cognition in NVHL rats, we asked whether the early experience also increased interhippocampal synchrony. Adult NVHL rats that received cognitive training as adolescents had higher interhippocampal synchrony compared to the adult NVHL rats that were just exposed to the rotating arena as adolescents (Figure 4C). In FG-4592 clinical trial fact, interhippocampal synchrony in the trained NVHL rats could not be distinguished from that of the trained control rats (Figure 4D), suggesting that adolescent cognitive training normalized interhippocampal synchrony in NVHL rats. Beyond normalizing the synchrony of LFP oscillations between the two dorsal hippocampi of adult NVHL rats, the juvenile cognitive experience caused additional changes in neural synchrony during the two-frame task. Compared to the NVHL rats that were just exposed to the rotating arena as juveniles, the phase synchrony between the left and right mPFC tended to be lower at all the frequency
bands, from delta to fast gamma, in the NVHL rats that had juvenile cognitive training (Figure 5A). An essentially opposite pattern of differences in synchrony between the mPFC and hippocampus was observed between the adult NVHL rats that had been trained or exposed as juveniles. Phase synchrony between the hippocampus and see more mPFC tended to be higher at all the frequency bands in the NVHL rats that had juvenile cognitive training compared to the NVHL rats that had only been exposed to the rotating arena (Figure 5B). The same variables were compared between the NVHL and sham control animals that were trained in adolescence. No significant differences were identified in left-right mPFC phase synchrony (Figure 5C), but phase synchrony between the hippocampus about and mPFC sites was reliably greater in the NVHL animals (Figure 5D). Because synchrony between the left and right mPFC and synchrony between the mPFC and hippocampus was not different during home cage behavior and during the two frame task (Figure S3), it
is unclear whether these differences are relevant for cognitive function in the two-frame task. Nonetheless, these findings provide additional unambiguous evidence that the adolescent cognitive experience had potentially widespread functional consequences in brain networks known to be involved in a variety of cognitive operations, including cognitive control (Kelemen and Fenton, 2010; Miller and Cohen, 2001). We sought additional evidence that cognitive training in adolescence could alter brain structure or function in adulthood. Four groups were examined: NVHL animals that had training (n = 4) or were exposed (n = 5), and saline-treated animals that had training (n = 3) or were exposed (n = 5) in adolescence (P35).