Extended Data Figure 10: Relationship of results to Eshel et al (2016).

Here we reproduce results for the variable-magnitude task from Eshel et al.³⁴ with two different time windows. a, Change in firing rate in response to cued reward delivery averaged over all cells. b, Comparing hill-function fit and response averaged over all cells for expected (cued) and unexpected reward delivery. c, Correlation between response predicted by scaled common response function and actual response to expected reward delivery. d, Zooming in on (c) shows correlation driven primarily by larger reward magnitudes. e-h, Repeating the above analysis for a window of 200 – 600ms.