. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Dec 6.

Published in final edited form as: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2018 Jul 23;26(6):525–540. doi: 10.1037/pha0000216

Table 3:

Results of the inferential tests used to analyze the raw proportion of responses for the large magnitude reinforcer, AUCs, and omissions following administration of Ro 63–1908 and CP-101,606 in delay discounting.

Ro 63–1908					CP-101,606

Raw Proportion of Responses					Raw Proportion of Responses

Factor	DF	F Statistic	P	η_p²	Factor	DF	F Statistic	P	η_p²

Delay	1.932, 42.496	161.156	<.001	.880	Delay	1.807, 33.945	192.045	< .001	.901
Schedule	1,22	95.619	<.001	.813	Schedule	1,22	115.905	< .001	.847
Dose	3,66	8.030	<.001	.267	Dose	3,63	0.853	.470	.039
Delay × Schedule	1.932, 42.496	17.407	<.001	.442	Delay × Schedule	1.807, 37.945	27.776	< .001	.569
Delay × Dose	5.831, 128.282	1.606	.153	.068	Delay × Dose	6.103, 128.168	1.050	.403	.048
Schedule × Dose	3,66	7.845	< .001^a	.263	Schedule × Dose	3,63	0.455	.470	.021
Delay × Dose × Schedule	5.831, 128.282	1.646	.142	.070	Delay × Dose × Schedule	6.103, 128.168	0.911	.536	.042

AUC					AUC

Factor	DF	F Statistic	P		Factor	DF	F Statistic	P

Schedule	1,22	98.519	< .001		Schedule	1,22	63.645	< .001
Dose	3,66	7.244	< .001		Dose	3,66	0.987	.405
Schedule × Dose	3,66	7.520	< .00 l^b		Schedule × Dose	3,66	0.636	.594

Omissions					Omissions

Schedule	DF	χ²	n	P	Schedule	DF	χ²	n	P

Ascending	3	4.263	12	.234	Ascending	3	2.000	12	.572
Descending	3	0.143	12	.986	Descending	3	3.667	12	.300

To probe the significant interaction, separate two-way ANOVAs were conducted for each schedule, with delay and dose as within-subjects factors. For rats tested in the ascending schedule, there was a main effect of delay only, F(1.212, 13.332) = 83.157, p < .001, η_p² = .883. For rats tested in the descending schedule, there were main effects of delay, F(1.820, 20.019) = 98.174, p < .001, η_p² = .899, and dose, F(3, 33) = 11.334, p < .001, η_p² = .507, as well as a significant delay × dose interaction, F(12, 132) = 2.256, p = .012, η_p² = .170. Ro 63–1908 (1.0 mg/kg) significantly decreased responding at the 30-s, t(11) = 3.261, p = .008, d = −1.040, and 60-s, t(11) = 3.207, p = .008, d = −1.158, delays relative to vehicle.

Contrasts showed that Ro 63−1908 did not affect AUCs in rats trained on the ascending schedule (all p’s ≥.208), whereas Ro 63−1908 (1.0 mg/kg) significantly decreased AUCs (p = .008).