Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Schematic representation of minimum (black) and maximum (gray) extent of mPFC damage. Coronal sections are modified from Paxinos and Watson (1998). The number next to each section refers to its position in the anteroposterior plane relative to bregma (in millimeters).
- Figure 2.
Reacquisition of instrumental performance. The mean number of lever presses per minute (±1 SEM), averaged across daily sessions, are shown for the last 3 d of training (left) and 3 d of retraining after surgery (right). The data are plotted separately for the sham and mPFC group.
- Figure 3.
Extinction and selective reinstatement of instrumental performance. Left, The mean number of lever presses per minute (±1 SEM) during consecutive 5 min blocks of extinction for the sham and mPFC groups. Right, The mean percentage of total responses (±1 SEM) made on each lever after the noncontingent outcome delivery for the sham and mPFC group. The data are plotted according to whether the action was trained with the outcome delivered during reinstatement (Reinst) or other outcome (Other).
- Figure 4.
Sensitivity of instrumental performance to outcome devaluation. The mean number of lever presses per minute during the outcome devaluation test for the sham and mPFC group is shown. The data are plotted according to whether the action was trained with the outcome devalued at test (Deval) or the other outcome (Other). The vertical bars represent 1 SE of the difference between means across actions for each group.
- Figure 5.
Sensitivity of instrumental performance to outcome devaluation. The mean number of lever presses per minute during the outcome devaluation test for groups sham, pre, and post is shown. The data are plotted according to whether the action was trained with the outcome devalued at test (Deval) or the other outcome (Other). The vertical bars represent 1 SE of the difference between means across actions for each group.
- Figure 6.
Extinction and selective reinstatement of instrumental performance. Left, The mean number of lever presses per minute (±1 SEM) during consecutive 5 min blocks of extinction for the sham and mPFC groups. Right, The mean percentage of total responses (±1 SEM) made on each lever after the noncontingent outcome delivery for groups sham, pre, and post. The data are plotted according to whether the action was trained with the outcome delivered during reinstatement (Reinst) or the other outcome (Other).
- Figure 7.
Extinction (baseline) during devalued reinstatement testing. The mean number of lever presses per minute during consecutive 5 min blocks of extinction for the sham and mPFC group. The data are plotted according to whether the action was trained with the outcome devalued at test (Deval) or the other outcome (Other). Note that the devalued outcome was also used to reinstate instrumental performance (see Fig. 8).
- Figure 8.
Impact of a devalued, noncontingently delivered outcome on response selection. The mean percentage of total responses made on each lever before (Extinction) and after (Reinstatement) the noncontingent outcome delivery for the sham group (left) and mPFC group (right). The data are plotted according to whether the action was trained with the outcome delivered during reinstatement (Reinst) or other outcome (Other). Note that the reinstating outcome had been devalued immediately before the test. Error bars represent SEM.
