Table 1.
Block order effects on between-context modulations of LFP power
| Frequency/block order | Prestimulus epoch |
Poststimulus epoch |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | S | C | Q | N | S | C | Q | |
| 15–30 Hz | ||||||||
| All | L | L | L | L | NS | NS | NS | NS |
| T→P | L | L | L | L | NS | H | NS | NS |
| P→T | L | NS | L | L | NS | L | NS | NS |
| 40–50 Hz | ||||||||
| All | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L |
| T→P | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L |
| P→T | L | L | L | L | NS | NS | L | NS |
| 70–85 Hz | ||||||||
| All | H | NS | NS | NS | L | L | L | L |
| T→P | H | NS | NS | NS | L | L | L | L |
| P→T | H | H | H | NS | L | L | L | L |
Block order effect was analyzed by ANOVA (order by context by taste) followed by simple main-effect analysis. As a whole, LFP powers in the passive→task order (P→T: passive preceded task) were lower than those in the task→passive order (T→P: task preceded passive) independent of context, reflecting the significant main effects of block order in all frequency ranges (p < 0.05 by RM-ANOVA) (data not shown). However, the context-dependent modulations were consistent in most conditions, although the block order did affect a subset of the conditions (e.g., the 70–85 Hz power in prestimulus epoch and the 40–50 Hz power in poststimulus epoch). All, All sessions including both block order shown in Figure 2. N, NaCl; S, sucrose; C, citric acid; Q, quinine. H and L indicate higher and lower power during task–that is, either a significant main context effect (with no interaction) or interaction followed by simple main effect of context in each taste and order (p < 0.05). NS, No significance. Underline in each symbol indicates different result of the analysis of sessions broken down according to order.