Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Schematic representation of excitotoxic lesions of the amygdala, with largest area of damage in light gray and smallest area of damage in dark gray. Lesions of the CN are displayed in the left column, and lesions of the BLA are displayed in the right column. Sections are from -1.88, -2.30, -2.80, and -3.30 mm relative to bregma, from top to bottom, respectively, in the anteroposterior plane (adapted from Paxinos and Watson, 1998).
- Figure 2.
Low-power photomicrograph showing, in a, a sham brain on which the major boundaries of the basolateral complex [comprising the basolateral and lateral amygdala (LA)] and of the CN have been marked along with the optic tract (opt) and external capsule (ec) as general landmarks, in b, a representative cell-body lesion of the basolateral complex, and in c, a representative cell-body lesion of the central nucleus. These coronal sections are all approximately -2.8 mm posterior to bregma.
- Figure 3.
Experiment 1. A, Mean lever presses per minute (±1 SEM) across sessions of instrumental training averaged across the two instrumental actions for each of the lesion groups. B, Mean lever presses per minute in the 10 min extinction test (±1 SE of the difference of the means) conducted after selective devaluation of one of the instrumental outcomes. Devaluation was achieved using a specific-satiety procedure. Data are presented separately for the action that, in training, had delivered the now devalued outcome (Dev) and for the other action (Non) and for each of the lesioned groups.
- Figure 4.
Experiment 1. Mean lever presses per minute in the 10 min rewarded devaluation test for each of the lesion groups (±1 SE of the difference of the means). Devaluation was achieved using a specific-satiety procedure as in the extinction test; however, performance of the two responses was rewarded with the outcomes that those responses had earned in training. Dev, Devalued; Non, nondevalued.
- Figure 5.
Experiment 1. Consumption test of specific-satiety induced devaluation (±1SEof the difference of the means). Results are presented separately for consumption of the outcome that was the same as [devalued (Dev)] and different from [nondevalued (Non)] that outcome consumed immediately before the test phase and for each of the lesion groups.
- Figure 6.
Experiment 1. Pavlovian conditioning and outcome-specific transfer. The left panel displays the mean number of magazine entries during the CS presentations and during the pre-CS intervals across days of pavlovian training for the three lesioned groups. The right panels display the mean number of lever presses per minute during the pavlovian-instrumental transfer test (±1 SE of the difference of the means). The number of responses during the baseline period was subtracted from the number of responses during the stimulus presentations to reveal the net excitatory effect of the stimuli. Same refers to the stimulus that predicts the same outcome as that delivered by the lever, whereas Different refers to the stimulus paired with the other outcome.
- Figure 7.
Experiment 2. General versus outcome-specific transfer. The design of experiment 2 is presented at the top: S1, S2, S3 refer to the clicker, tone, and white noise stimuli; R1 and R2 refer to the left and right lever press actions; and O1, O2, and O3 refer to the pellet, 20% sucrose, and 20% polycose outcomes. The identity of the stimuli, actions, and outcomes was counterbalanced across subjects in each group. The bottom left panel displays the mean number of magazine entries during the CS presentations and during the pre-CS intervals across days of pavlovian training for the three lesioned groups. The right panels display the mean number of lever presses per minute during the pavlovian-instrumental transfer test separately for the outcome-specific CSs (i.e., S1 and S2 ± 1 SE of the difference of the means) and for the general excitatory stimulus (S3 ± 1 SEM). The number of responses during the baseline period was subtracted from the number of responses during the stimulus presentations to reveal transfer (i.e., the net excitatory effect of the stimuli over baseline). Same refers to the stimulus that predicts the same outcome as that delivered by the lever, Different refers to the stimulus paired with the other outcome, and General refers to the stimulus paired with the outcome that was not earned during instrumental training.
In this issue
