Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Experiment 1: Extended training rescues the reversal deficit in animals with a dysfunctional PF–pDMS connection. A, Rats were first trained to press two levers for two separate outcomes under the initial state, State 1, and then tested in devaluation. During the proposed switch to State 2, animals were trained on the reverse of these contingencies and then tested again in devaluation and reinstatement. Rats then received additional training on the reversed contingencies and were tested again. B, C, Representation of lesion placements showing each overlapping cytotoxic lesion for pDMS (B) and PF (C). D, Mean lever presses per minute (±1 SEM) during acquisition of the lever press response. E, Mean total presses (±1 SEM) during devaluation testing of the original contingencies. F, Mean lever presses per minute (±1 SEM) during acquisition of the reversed contingencies. G, Mean total presses (±1 SEM) during devaluation testing of the reversed contingencies. H, Mean total presses (±1 SEM) during outcome-selective reinstatement testing of the reversed contingencies. I, Mean lever presses per minute (±1 SEM) during additional training of the reversed contingencies. J. Mean total presses (±1 SEM) during devaluation testing of the reversed contingencies after additional training. K, Mean total presses (±1 SEM) during reinstatement testing of the reversed contingencies after additional training. R1, Response 1; R2, response 2; O1, outcome 1; O2, outcome 2. Group IPSI, n = 10 and Group CONTRA, n = 10.
- Figure 2.
Experiment 2A: Increasing the training-test interval does not, but extinction does, encourage a return to responding in accordance with original contingencies rats with and without an intact PF–pDMS connection. A, Rats were trained to press two levers for two separate outcomes and then tested in devaluation. Rats were then trained on the reversed contingencies and then returned to their home cages for 10 d, followed by a devaluation test. Rats were then returned to their home cages for a further 7 d, followed by another devaluation test. B, C, Representation of lesion placements showing each overlapping cytotoxic lesion for pDMS (B) and PF (C), D, Mean lever presses per minute (±1 SEM) during acquisition of the lever press response. E, Mean total presses (±1 SEM) during devaluation testing of the original contingencies. F, Mean lever presses per minute (±1 SEM) during acquisition of the reversed contingencies. G, Mean total presses (±1 SEM) during devaluation testing after 10 d in home cages. H, Mean total presses (±1 SEM) during day 1 of devaluation testing after 7 additional days in the home cage. I, Mean total presses (±1 SEM) averaged over both days of devaluation testing after 7 additional days in the home cage. R1, Response 1; R2, response 2; O1, outcome 1; O2, outcome 2. Group IPSI, n = 8 and Group CONTRA, n = 7.
- Figure 3.
Experiment 2B: Extinction of reversed contingencies, rather than a specific training-test interval, is critical to return responding to the original contingencies. A, Rats were trained to press two levers for two separate outcomes, trained on the reversed contingencies, and then returned to their home cages for 3 weeks, followed by a devaluation test. Rats were then returned to their home cages for a further 2 weeks, followed by another devaluation test. B, C, Representation of lesion placements showing each overlapping cytotoxic lesion for pDMS (B) and PF (C). D, Mean lever presses per minute (±1 SEM) during acquisition of the lever press response. E, Mean lever presses per minute (±1 SEM) during acquisition of the reversed contingencies. F, Mean total presses (±1 SEM) during devaluation testing after 3 weeks in the home cage. G, Mean total presses (±1 SEM) during devaluation testing after an additional 2 weeks in the home cage. R1, Response 1; R2, response 2; O1, outcome 1; O2, outcome 2. Group IPSI, n = 7 and Group CONTRA, n = 7.
- Figure 4.
Experiment 3: Altering the reversal context rescues the deficit in PF–pDMS disconnected rats when tested in outcome-selective reinstatement but not devaluation. A, Rats were first trained to press two levers for two separate outcomes in a particular context (Context A) and then tested for devaluation performance in that same context. Rats were then trained on the reversed contingencies in a distinct context (Context B) and then tested for devaluation and reinstatement performance in that same new context. B, C, Representation of lesion placements showing each overlapping cytotoxic lesion for pDMS (B) and PF (C), D, Mean lever presses per minute (±1 SEM) during acquisition of the lever press response. E, Mean total presses (±1 SEM) during devaluation testing of the initial contingencies. F, Mean lever presses per minute (±1 SEM) during acquisition of the reversed contingencies. G, Mean total presses (±1 SEM) during devaluation testing of the reversed contingencies. H, Mean total presses (±1 SEM) during outcome-selective reinstatement testing of the reversed contingencies. R1, Response 1; R2, response 2; O1, outcome 1; O2, outcome 2. Group IPSI, n = 6 and Group CONTRA, n = 6.
