. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Oct 1.

Published in final edited form as: Biochem Pharmacol. 2019 Jul 8;168:204–213. doi: 10.1016/j.bcp.2019.07.007

Table 1.

Comparison of HI and LI identification across cohorts of outbred Sprague-Dawley rats

		Ll (n=8–15/cohort)
	Cohort 1 (mean ± SEM)	Cohort 2 (mean ± SEM)	Cohort 3 (mean ± SEM)	Cohort 4 (mean ± SEM)	Cohort 5 (mean ± SEM)
Premature Responses (F_4,57 = 6.153, p<0.05)	59.5 ± 1.9	54.7 ± 1.5	54.1 ± 0.9	50.2 ± 1.5	51.5 ± 0.8
Reinforcers Earned (F_4,57 =1.566, n.s.)	28.4 ± 1.3	31.8 ± 1.3	32.2 ± 1.4	33.3 ± 1.8	34.8 ± 2.0
Accuracy (F_4,57 = 0.889, n.s.)	96.4 ± 0.7	97.1 ± 1.0	96.0 ± 0.7	94.9 ± 1.2	96.6 ± 0.6
% Omissions (F_4,57 = 0.472, n.s.)	10.8 ± 1.5	12.7 ± 2.3	12.7 ± 1.4	14.6 ± 1.3	12.7 ± 2.5
Latency to Respond (F_4,57 = 1.66, n.s.)	1.5 ± 0.1	2.4 ± 0.6	2.3 ± 0.3	1.7 ± 0.1	1.7 ± 0.1
Time to Finish Session (F_4,57 = 1.07, n.s.)	1188.5 ± 18.3	1223.5 ± 24.2	1211.1 ± 12.0	1223.7 ± 11.5	1187.5 ± 18.0
		HI (n=9–15/cohort)
	Cohort 1 (mean ± SEM)	Cohort 2 (mean ± SEM)	Cohort 3 (mean ± SEM)	Cohort 4 (mean ± SEM)	Cohort 5 (mean ± SEM)
Premature Responses (F_4,58 = 25.40, p<0.05)	80.1 ± 0.8^*	76.0 ± 1.0^*	72.2 ± 0.8^*	67.2 ± 1.1^*	69.4 ± 0.9^*
Reinforcers Earned (F_4,58 = 15.78, p<0.05)	17.4 ± 0.8^*	19.8 ± 0.9^*	21.3 ± 0.9^*	25.6 ± 0.9^*	26.5 ± 1.0^*
Accuracy (F_4,58 = 0.832, n.s.)	98.5 ± 0.9^*	97.2 ± 0.8	95.7 ± 1.2	97.0 ± 0.7	96.6 ± 1.0
% Omissions (F_4,58 = 6.287, p<0.05)	2.1 ± 0.5^*	3.1 ± 0.4^*	5.8 ± 0.9^*	6.7 ± 0.8^*	4.1 ± 0.7^*
Latency to Respond (F_4,58 = 2.28, n.s.)	1.6 ± 0.1	1.9 ± 0.2	2.4 ± 0.3	1.7 ± 0.1	1.9 ± 0.2
Time to Finish Session (F_4,58 = 5.69, p<0.05)	1077.0 ± 6.7^*	1104.4 ± 15.1^*	1138.2 ± 9.9^*	1136.0 ± 6.6^*	1129.6 ± 7.9^*

HI and LI rats stratified on ITI8 challenge session.

p<0.05 vs. LI within each respective cohort (Student’s t-test); across cohorts an ordinary one-way ANOVA was employed for each output parameter of the 1-CSRT task. Latency to respond and time to finish are reported in seconds.