Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Physiol Behav. 2018 Mar 16;192:145–157. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.03.012

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Instrumental Training and Progressive Ratio Testing. A) Average active and inactive lever presses (±SEM) during FR1 training. Both groups preferentially responded on the active vs. inactive lever, and behavior was similar between Chow and JF groups. B) Average break point (±SEM). The final ratio completed (i.e., break point) was significantly higher in the Chow vs. JF group. C) Average total active and inactive lever presses (±SEM) during progressive ratio testing. In concordance with the breakpoints, active lever pressing was significantly higher in the Chow vs. JF group. Moreover, the Chow group preferentially engaged the active lever across testing, whereas the JF group lost preference for the active lever by the third test. * = main effect of diet, p<0.05; # = planned comparisons, active vs. inactive levers, p<0.05.