Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Jul 6.
Published in final edited form as: Nature. 2010 Dec 8;469(7328):53–57. doi: 10.1038/nature09588

Figure 4. DA is necessary for learning CS-US associations that lead to sign-tracking, but not goal-tracking.

Figure 4

The effects of flupenthixol are shown for: 1. Measures of sign-tracking: (a) probability to approach the lever-CS, (b) number of contacts with the lever-CS, (c) latency to contact the lever-CS. 2. Measures of goal-tracking: (d) probability to approach the food-tray during lever-CS presentation, (e) number of contacts with the food-tray during lever-CS presentation, (f) latency to contact the food-tray during lever-CS presentation. Data are expressed as mean + SEM. Flupenthixol (sessions 1–7) blocked the performance of both sign-tracking and goal-tracking CRs. To determine whether flupenthixol influenced performance or learning of a CR, behavior was examined following a saline injection on session 8 for all rats. bLR rats that were treated with flupenthixol prior to sessions 1–7 (bLR-Flu, n=16) responded similarly to the bLR saline (bLR-Saline, n=10) group on all measures of goal-tracking behavior on session 8, whereas bHRs treated with flupenthixol (bHR-Flu, n=22) differed significantly from the bHR saline (bHR-Saline, n=10) group on session 8 (*P<0.01, saline vs. flupenthixol). Thus, bLRs learned the CS-US association that produced a goal-tracking CR even though the drug prevented the expression of this behavior during training. Parenthetically, bHRs treated with flupenthixol did not develop a goal-tracking CR.