Skip to main content
. 2020 Jan 14;13:291. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00291

Figure 4.

Figure 4

In adolescents, reward devaluation primarily causes a reduction in goal tracking among goal tracker individuals. (A–D) Average PCA index (A), probability index (B), bias index (C), and latency index (D) among sign trackers (left-hand side of panels) and goal trackers (right-hand side of panels) before and after reward devaluation (paired group) or sham devaluation (unpaired group). Higher PCA index indicates more sign tracking relative to goal tracking. Dark blue, average over the last 3 days of training. Cyan, test session (in extinction). (E,F) Raw lever press count (E) and magazine entry count (F) among sign trackers (left-hand side of panels) and goal trackers (right-hand side of panels) before and after reward devaluation (paired group) or sham devaluation (unpaired group). Dark blue, average over the last 3 days of training. Cyan, test session. All panels, error bars indicate SEM. Asterisk, p < 0.05. (G,H) Average PCA index over the last 3 days of training plotted against change in PCA index for the paired (G) and unpaired (H) groups. Regression lines in red.