Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Histological results. A–F, Photomicrographs of the MD (A, C, E) and BLA (B, D, F). Representative excitotoxic lesions are shown at low (4×) (A, B) and high (10×) (C, D) magnification. Representative sham lesions are shown at high magnification only (E, F). CL, Centrolateral thalamic nucleus; CeN, central amygdala. G, F, Schematic representation of the minimum (black outline) and maximum (gray shading) extent of damage resulting from MD (G) and BLA (H) lesions. (Adapted from Paxinos and Watson, 1998.)
- Figure 2.
Effects of MD and BLA lesions on instrumental action selection based on outcome value. Mean lever presses per minute (±SEM) over the 5 min choice extinction test. The data are presented separately for the action paired with the devalued outcome (devalued) and the action paired with the other outcome (nondevalued).
- Figure 3.
Effects of MD and BLA lesions on cue-guided action selection. Mean lever presses per minute (+SEM) during the precue period (baseline), the cue that signaled the same outcome as the action (Same) and the cue that signaled the outcome paired with the other action (Different).
- Figure 4.
Effects of MD and BLA lesions on outcome-guided action selection. Mean lever presses per minute (+SEM) during the preoutcome period (baseline), after the delivery of the outcome that was paired with that action (Same) and after the delivery of the outcome was paired with the other action (Different).
- Figure 5.
Effects of MD and BLA lesions on pavlovian contingency degradation learning. The left panel shows the mean number of seconds spent in the food magazine (±SEM) during the precue period (baseline), the cue that was paired with the noncontingently delivered outcome (degraded), and the cue that was paired with the other outcome (nondegraded). For convenience, these data are presented in the right panel as a difference score (stimulus − baseline).
