Figure 2.

Specific satiety-induced outcome devaluation in Sign-trackers (ST), Goal-trackers (GT), and intermediate (INT) rats. Data are represented as within-subject individual data (lines; green and gray lines represent females and males, respectively) and group averages (bars, mean ± SEM). Overall main effects of outcome value on (A) total behavior (lever + food cup contacts) and separately on lever contacts (B) and food cup contacts (C), with no main effects of virus nor interaction (ps > 0.05). D–F, For lever contacts, we observe a virus × tracking × outcome value interaction (see Results), and post hoc analysis indicate intact (mCherry) ST and GT show devaluation insensitivity, while intact (mCherry) INT are marginally devaluation sensitive (t₍₁₂₎ = 2.07, p = 0.061). While ST and GT rats with BLA-aIC inhibition were devaluation sensitive (ST hM4Di: t₍₁₂₎ = 2.63, p = 0.022; GT hM4Di: t₍₁₁₎ = 2.12, p = 0.057), INT rats with BLA-aIC inhibition were devaluation insensitive (INT hM4Di: t₍₁₀₎ = −0.10, p = 0.926). G–I, For food cup contacts we observe a main effect of outcome value, and our a priori planned comparisons confirm devaluation sensitivity in both GT viral groups (H; GT mCherry marginal: t₍₁₂₎ = 2.08, p = 0.059; GT hM4Di t₍₁₂₎ = 3.94, p = 0.002) and ST and INT mCherry groups (ST: t₍₁₂₎ = 2.44, p = 0.031; INT: t₍₁₂₎ = 2.38, p = 0.035), but not in the ST and INT hM4Di groups (ps > 0.1). I, Inset, Total behavior (sum lever and food cup contacts for intermediate rats). Planned comparisons show intact INT are devaluation sensitive (INT mCherry: t₍₁₂₎ = 2.59, p = 0.024) but INT rats with BLA-aIC inhibition were devaluation insensitive (INT hM4Di t₍₁₀₎ = 0.359, p = 0.727); *p < 0.05, #p = 0.06.