Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2016 Nov;23(11):595–606. doi: 10.1101/lm.043026.116

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

© 2016 Singer et al.; Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press

This article is distributed exclusively by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press for the first 12 months after the full-issue publication date (see http://learnmem.cshlp.org/site/misc/terms.xhtml). After 12 months, it is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International), as described at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

PMC Copyright notice

Figure 4. — CS properties and the expression of conditioned approach. Conditioned approach (A, probability; B, latency; C, contacts/sec) to either the lever location (upward red/black data points) or food cup (downward blue/black data points) is displayed across 25-trial sessions (bars) or during the first trial of a session (circles, lever approach; squares, food cup approach). Results are compared between the final standard Pavlovian conditioning session (lever-CS visible) and the subsequent session when the lever-CS was covered (not visible; green background shading, black cross-hatched bars and black filled-in circles/squares). Lever approach was defined as either a lever press (when visible) or contact with the lever cover (when not visible). While covering the lever had no effect on the probability (A) of lever (cover) approach in STs, STs decreased their latency (B; 25 trials; (*) P < 0.05) and rate of contact (C; 25 trials; (*) P < 0.05) with the lever(cover)-CS. Importantly, immediately after covering the lever, STs started to approach the food cup with identical probability (A), latency (B), and rate of contact (C) as IN and GT rats. After covering the lever, GTs began to approach the location of the lever-CS, but made contact with the lever cover significantly less than STs (C, 25 trials; (^) P < 0.05). In compensation, GTs reduced their probability of approaching the food cup when the lever was covered (A; 25 trials; (^#) P < 0.05). While IN rats did not significantly alter their lever-approach when the lever was covered, their interaction with the food cup was effected, approaching it quicker (B; 25 trial reduced approach latency; (++) P < 0.01). Means are shown as ±SEM.