Fig. 2. Chemogenetic silencing of ACC affected task performance.
a Inhibitory DREADD virus was injected in ACC. b 2nd choice performance for 1st epoch in 2 steps condition in representative CNO and saline sessions (three rule switches each for 1→2 steps and for opposite direction in both sessions). Blue, saline. Pink, CNO. Dotted and solid lines, 1st and Rule Switch-blocks. c 2nd choice commission error for 1st epoch in 1 step condition for the same sessions. d 2nd choice performance for all 2 steps blocks. Blue, saline. Red, CNO. e Same as in d, but for 1st block. f Same as in d, but for Rule Switch-blocks. g 2nd choice performance for 1st block in 2 steps condition. Repeated measures ANOVA revealed no main effect (P > 0.4 for dose; P > 0.1 for epoch). h Same as in g, but for Rule Switch-blocks. CNO dose showed a main effect (P = 0.018, F1,50 = 5.98 for dose; P = 0.051, F2,50 = 3.16 for epoch) with no interaction (P > 0.9). Post hoc comparisons using two-sided paired t-test with Bonferroni’s correction across epochs (no correction for dose because it contained only two conditions): *Pa = 0.009; *Pb = 0.015; Pc = 0.11; Pd = 0.054; *Pe = 0.021. i 2nd choice performance for 1st epoch of Rule Switch-blocks in 2 steps condition. *Pa = 0.0342; *Pb = 0.0050; *Pc = 0.044; *Pd = 0.025; *Pe = 0.0047. j 2nd choice commission error for Rule Switch-blocks in 1 step condition. ANOVA revealed no main effect (P > 0.6 for dose; P > 0.4 for epoch). k Same as in j, but for Rule Switch-blocks. Significant main effect for epoch (P = 0.0038, F2,50 = 6.26) but not for dose (P > 0.3) with post hoc comparisons: *Pa = 0.00042, *Pb = 0.00016, Pc = 0.038, and *Pd = 0.013. n = 3 Rule Switch-blocks each for CNO and saline sessions (b, c). All pairwise comparisons were conducted using a two-sided paired t-test with n = 9 (d–f, h–k) or 8 rats (g). Error bar, SEM (b–k). Source data are provided as a Source Data file.