Fig. 2.

Different neuronal substrates for appetitive versus aversive learning. a Representative traces of CGC activity 24 h after animals received first or second appetitive training alone and from naïve animals. b CGCs from both first (n = 12) and second (n = 13) appetitive training groups were depolarization compared to naïve controls (n = 13) but not compared with each other. Violin plots show density of data extending from minimum to maximum values. Internal boxplots show median and interquartile range (first and third quartile). Whiskers represent minimum to maximum values. Circles show the mean. c CGC membrane resistance was not different between conditions. d Representative traces of CGC activity from aversively conditioned and naïve animals. e There was no significant difference in membrane potential between the two conditions (n = 12 for both). f Membrane resistance was not significantly different between conditions. g Heat plots of normalized PlB activity in response to aversive conditioned stimulus (CS) in preparations from aversively trained and naive animals. Data organized from high to low PlB activity after the conditioned stimulus. White line represents start of conditioned stimulus. h Representative traces and normalized line plot of PlB spike frequency in response to the aversive conditioned stimulus. Line and shading show mean ± standard error of the mean, respectively. i Heat plots of normalized PlB activity in response to appetitive conditioned stimulus in preparations from appetitive trained and naïve animals. j Representative traces and normalized line plot of PlB spike frequency in response to the appetitive conditioned stimulus. Abbreviations: appet, appetitive; avers, aversive; tr, training; MP, membrane potential; norm, normalized; prep, preparation