Figure 4 - Source Data 4 Data related to mPFC DREADD inhibition. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Mean percent correct for reversing stimulus, during stable period (each row contains data from one animal) Saline CNO 90.2380952380952 87.8571428571429 85.9074259074259 83.9285714285714 82.5 89.7222222222222 86.5972222222222 93.4523809523809 89.9685846560847 91.1111111111111 86.6269841269841 86.7063492063492 88.5827664399093 90.7142857142857 84.4895833333333 82.6302083333333 86.2755102040816 82.074938949939 88.3163265306123 82.129329004329 83.7795537795538 87.5515873015873 78.8492063492064 81.0912698412699 86.4583333333333 87.4837662337662 ____________ Test results Column B CNO vs. vs. Column A Saline Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test P value 0.6355 Exact or approximate P value? Exact P value summary ns Significantly different (P < 0.05)? No One- or two-tailed P value? Two-tailed Sum of positive, negative ranks 53 , -38 Sum of signed ranks (W) 15 Number of pairs 13 Median of differences Median 1.025 How effective was the pairing? rs (Spearman) 0.4396 P value (one tailed) 0.0675 P value summary ns Was the pairing significantly effective? No _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Mean percent correct for reversing stimulus, during switching period (each row contains data from one animal) Saline CNO 46.9605064247921 45.6490929705215 47.8174603174603 48.6878306878307 47.0210537918871 46.3467261904762 40.5556843949701 37.3516865079365 51.8410409035409 52.2619047619048 47.0080266955267 47.4116161616162 47.1937830687831 48.7475198412698 46.3714209766841 48.4092525899249 49.0079365079365 50.6229250959643 49.5942714692715 49.1363211951447 48.2197971781305 46.6935107376284 46.2842712842713 49.0330106401535 47.7736006683375 44.1989087301587 ____________ Test results Column B CNO vs. vs. Column A Saline Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test P value >0.9999 Exact or approximate P value? Exact P value summary ns Significantly different (P < 0.05)? No One- or two-tailed P value? Two-tailed Sum of positive, negative ranks 46 , -45 Sum of signed ranks (W) 1 Number of pairs 13 Median of differences Median 0.4036 How effective was the pairing? rs (Spearman) 0.5769 P value (one tailed) 0.0213 P value summary * Was the pairing significantly effective? Yes ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Decision boundary distance, estimated from psychometric curves AFTER switching period(in cyc/deg, each row contains data from one animal) Saline CNO 0.0255151449631644 0.0116448088161987 0.0283997771225126 0.0290033093237116 0.0115187786573611 0.0107944659899542 0.0229114964097304 0.0228532481027247 0.0160516134122453 0.04405664726797 0.0506717458243373 0.0415376911040994 0.0483361308908341 0.0295588111687362 0.0166216317627173 0.0167133544866688 0.0118633009969562 0.0142010269853832 0.0221095134641492 0.0250041198452814 0.0268675603249531 0.0181029980010607 0.0158770197707831 0.0148848864423176 0.0364382737506264 0.021303320738492 ____________ Test results Column B CNO vs. vs. Column A Saline Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test P value 0.3396 Exact or approximate P value? Exact P value summary ns Significantly different (P < 0.05)? No One- or two-tailed P value? Two-tailed Sum of positive, negative ranks 31 , -60 Sum of signed ranks (W) -29 Number of pairs 13 Median of differences Median -0.0007243 How effective was the pairing? rs (Spearman) 0.5714 P value (one tailed) 0.0224 P value summary * Was the pairing significantly effective? Yes __________________________________________________________ Average block length (each row contains data from one animal) Saline CNO 82.4343434343434 111.875 74.2237762237762 68.5 90.3 81.25 82.5757575757576 80.6666666666667 81.3888888888889 65.3333333333333 93.5625 78.0833333333333 78 86.75 71.3529411764706 75.0666666666667 76.7642857142857 82.7527472527473 76.9772727272727 74.2462121212121 72.7307692307692 68.7692307692308 83.7277777777778 75.8484848484848 70.9333333333333 71.2937062937063 ____________ Test results Column B CNO vs. vs. Column A Saline Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test P value 0.4548 Exact or approximate P value? Exact P value summary ns Significantly different (P < 0.05)? No One- or two-tailed P value? Two-tailed Sum of positive, negative ranks 34 , -57 Sum of signed ranks (W) -23 Number of pairs 13 Median of differences Median -2.731 How effective was the pairing? rs (Spearman) 0.4451 P value (one tailed) 0.0649 P value summary ns Was the pairing significantly effective? No __________________________________________________________ Average number of switches per session (each row contains data from one animal) Saline CNO 2.8 1.75 3.4 3.1 1.85714285714286 2.33333333333333 2.88888888888889 2.25 2.7 1.55555555555556 2.11111111111111 2 2.44444444444444 1.625 4.1 4.33333333333333 2.55555555555556 3.5 2.5 3.3 3.4 3.2 2.75 2.7 3.8 3.2 ____________ Test results Column B CNO vs. vs. Column A Saline Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test P value 0.3054 Exact or approximate P value? Exact P value summary ns Significantly different (P < 0.05)? No One- or two-tailed P value? Two-tailed Sum of positive, negative ranks 30 , -61 Sum of signed ranks (W) -31 Number of pairs 13 Median of differences Median -0.2 How effective was the pairing? rs (Spearman) 0.4284 P value (one tailed) 0.0719 P value summary ns Was the pairing significantly effective? No _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Model 1 parameters during stable period, for saline/CNO sessions(each row contains data from one animal) __________________ ¦Á1, stable period Saline CNO -0.23273 0.233878 -0.34946 0.072297 -0.08737 -0.31896 -0.39476 0.002168 0.207801 0.179208 0.111858 -0.27589 0.037008 0.017329 -0.10758 -0.27626 -0.20889 -0.4038 -0.27712 -0.02037 -0.30128 -0.75434 -0.39957 0.055594 0.2063 0.084806 ___________________ Test results for ¦Á1 Column B CNO vs. vs. Column A Saline Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test P value 0.7354 Exact or approximate P value? Exact P value summary ns Significantly different (P < 0.05)? No One- or two-tailed P value? Two-tailed Sum of positive, negative ranks 51 , -40 Sum of signed ranks (W) 11 Number of pairs 13 Median of differences Median -0.02859 How effective was the pairing? rs (Spearman) 0.1319 P value (one tailed) 0.3346 P value summary ns Was the pairing significantly effective? No __________________ ¦Á2, stable period Saline CNO 0.151205 1.873737 0.749752 0.50806 -0.30117 0.164353 -0.17522 -0.76993 0.092811 1.027122 0.387489 0.231924 0.281198 -0.54279 1.159585 0.907539 1.43554 0.521453 0.463473 1.57971 0.580717 0.981651 0.461637 0.759443 0.443172 0.126946 ___________________ Test results for ¦Á2 Column B CNO vs. vs. Column A Saline Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test P value 0.6355 Exact or approximate P value? Exact P value summary ns Significantly different (P < 0.05)? No One- or two-tailed P value? Two-tailed Sum of positive, negative ranks 53 , -38 Sum of signed ranks (W) 15 Number of pairs 13 Median of differences Median -0.1556 How effective was the pairing? rs (Spearman) 0.2857 P value (one tailed) 0.1718 P value summary ns Was the pairing significantly effective? No __________________ ¦Â, stable period Saline CNO 0.028487 0.749792 0.102629 0.187176 -0.02617 0.046328 -0.01242 -0.00209 0.200761 0.342538 -0.04694 -0.00848 0.300743 -0.10871 0.423733 0.190575 0.19575 0.267744 0.072478 0.422121 0.17309 0.121269 0.053963 0.001802 0.215183 0.130954 ___________________ Test results for ¦Â Column B CNO vs. vs. Column A Saline Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test P value 0.5417 Exact or approximate P value? Exact P value summary ns Significantly different (P < 0.05)? No One- or two-tailed P value? Two-tailed Sum of positive, negative ranks 55 , -36 Sum of signed ranks (W) 19 Number of pairs 13 Median of differences Median 0.03846 How effective was the pairing? rs (Spearman) 0.2088 P value (one tailed) 0.2467 P value summary ns Was the pairing significantly effective? No __________________ ¦Ã1, stable period Saline CNO 3.055235 2.755169 4.17035 3.473415 2.836413 3.513833 2.679274 2.979476 3.423543 3.4253 2.946978 3.235724 2.858488 2.841884 3.692701 3.543337 4.549157 3.747406 3.690698 3.754413 3.740267 4.165767 2.215085 2.944121 3.899127 3.628591 ___________________ Test results for ¦Ã1 Column B CNO vs. vs. Column A Saline Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test P value 0.8394 Exact or approximate P value? Exact P value summary ns Significantly different (P < 0.05)? No One- or two-tailed P value? Two-tailed Sum of positive, negative ranks 49 , -42 Sum of signed ranks (W) 7 Number of pairs 13 Median of differences Median 0.001757 How effective was the pairing? rs (Spearman) 0.6758 P value (one tailed) 0.0068 P value summary ** Was the pairing significantly effective? Yes __________________ ¦Ã2, stable period Saline CNO 0.5024 1.84285 0.739287 0.721724 0.216121 0.75959 0.425801 0.306229 0.635115 1.129463 -0.07832 0.347822 1.091541 -0.12198 1.43907 0.736629 1.271209 1.247363 0.602042 1.24777 0.848921 1.104193 0.338451 -0.02254 0.79703 0.633522 ___________________ Test results for ¦Ã2 Column B CNO vs. vs. Column A Saline Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test P value 0.6848 Exact or approximate P value? Exact P value summary ns Significantly different (P < 0.05)? No One- or two-tailed P value? Two-tailed Sum of positive, negative ranks 52 , -39 Sum of signed ranks (W) 13 Number of pairs 13 Median of differences Median -0.01756 How effective was the pairing? rs (Spearman) 0.1374 P value (one tailed) 0.3280 P value summary ns Was the pairing significantly effective? No _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Model 4 parameters during stable period, for saline/CNO sessions(each row contains data from one animal) ________________ ¦Â, stable period Saline CNO 0.101697 0.472868 0.103149 0.142972 -0.00129 0.113274 0.115793 -0.019 0.167433 0.219747 -0.10613 0.078771 0.271293 -0.1054 0.370953 0.179515 0.218757 0.313791 0.087016 0.371331 0.242587 0.261357 0.169471 -0.07655 0.162254 0.116799 __________________ Test results for ¦Â Column B CNO vs. vs. Column A Saline Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test P value 0.8394 Exact or approximate P value? Exact P value summary ns Significantly different (P < 0.05)? No One- or two-tailed P value? Two-tailed Sum of positive, negative ranks 49 , -42 Sum of signed ranks (W) 7 Number of pairs 13 Median of differences Median 0.03982 How effective was the pairing? rs (Spearman) -0.07692 P value (one tailed) 0.4032 P value summary ns Was the pairing significantly effective? No ________________ ¦Ã1, stable period Saline CNO 3.104132 2.719946 4.075073 3.40901 2.828081 3.54186 2.716918 2.942666 3.320191 3.323477 2.848237 3.303284 2.871376 2.846738 3.626399 3.455898 4.286861 3.72182 3.703995 3.546833 3.694109 4.083086 2.181096 2.781076 3.779626 3.523853 ___________________ Test results for ¦Ã1 Column B CNO vs. vs. Column A Saline Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test P value 0.9460 Exact or approximate P value? Exact P value summary ns Significantly different (P < 0.05)? No One- or two-tailed P value? Two-tailed Sum of positive, negative ranks 47 , -44 Sum of signed ranks (W) 3 Number of pairs 13 Median of differences Median -0.02464 How effective was the pairing? rs (Spearman) 0.6374 P value (one tailed) 0.0111 P value summary * Was the pairing significantly effective? Yes ________________ ¦Ã2, stable period Saline CNO 0.577037 1.432839 0.573441 0.640938 0.173592 0.811942 0.485501 0.179208 0.696043 0.952709 -0.09117 0.395123 1.039329 -0.10047 1.348865 0.665246 1.298296 1.194261 0.508786 1.202463 0.944552 1.099263 0.398985 -0.07649 0.786078 0.644377 ___________________ Test results for ¦Ã2 Column B CNO vs. vs. Column A Saline Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test P value 0.7869 Exact or approximate P value? Exact P value summary ns Significantly different (P < 0.05)? No One- or two-tailed P value? Two-tailed Sum of positive, negative ranks 50 , -41 Sum of signed ranks (W) 9 Number of pairs 13 Median of differences Median 0.0675 How effective was the pairing? rs (Spearman) 0.2308 P value (one tailed) 0.2239 P value summary ns Was the pairing significantly effective? No _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Model 1 parameters during switching period, for saline/CNO sessions(each row contains data from one animal) __________________ ¦Á1, switching period Saline CNO 0.427818 -0.4978 -0.21123 0.173717 0.479236 0.999565 -0.34034 0.308942 -0.74988 0.844573 0.417023 0.070982 -0.33745 -0.90212 -0.90196 -0.45108 -0.62234 -1.02662 -0.11941 -0.77311 -0.63581 -0.8946 -0.20342 -0.35119 -0.43448 0.372485 ___________________ Test results for ¦Á1 Column B CNO vs. vs. Column A Saline Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test P value 0.7869 Exact or approximate P value? Exact P value summary ns Significantly different (P < 0.05)? No One- or two-tailed P value? Two-tailed Sum of positive, negative ranks 50 , -41 Sum of signed ranks (W) 9 Number of pairs 13 Median of differences Median -0.1478 How effective was the pairing? rs (Spearman) 0.1484 P value (one tailed) 0.3149 P value summary ns Was the pairing significantly effective? No __________________ ¦Á2, switching period Saline CNO -0.24967 -0.19779 -0.0732 -0.11394 0.140479 -0.41134 -0.24171 -0.25816 0.004864 0.248139 0.164327 -0.36651 0.183506 -0.40342 0.012794 -0.11844 0.104164 -0.1962 -0.20867 0.493377 0.142236 0.047449 0.109597 0.147332 -0.09923 -0.16123 ___________________ Test results for ¦Á2 Column B CNO vs. vs. Column A Saline Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test P value 0.2163 Exact or approximate P value? Exact P value summary ns Significantly different (P < 0.05)? No One- or two-tailed P value? Two-tailed Sum of positive, negative ranks 27 , -64 Sum of signed ranks (W) -37 Number of pairs 13 Median of differences Median -0.062 How effective was the pairing? rs (Spearman) -0.3022 P value (one tailed) 0.1577 P value summary ns Was the pairing significantly effective? No __________________ ¦Â, switching period Saline CNO 0.190319 0.833065 0.244627 0.361151 -0.04915 0.309412 0.480983 0.247766 0.948051 -0.00715 -0.00877 0.262722 0.934212 0.857336 0.468418 0.478832 0.238747 0.611761 0.533682 0.630386 0.278516 0.691509 0.387792 0.515464 0.442473 0.191804 ___________________ Test results for ¦Â Column B CNO vs. vs. Column A Saline Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test P value 0.2439 Exact or approximate P value? Exact P value summary ns Significantly different (P < 0.05)? No One- or two-tailed P value? Two-tailed Sum of positive, negative ranks 63 , -28 Sum of signed ranks (W) 35 Number of pairs 13 Median of differences Median 0.1165 How effective was the pairing? rs (Spearman) -0.06593 P value (one tailed) 0.4173 P value summary ns Was the pairing significantly effective? No __________________ ¦Ã1, switching period Saline CNO 2.367967 2.08919 2.608391 2.837126 3.395738 4.383144 2.103776 3.024929 2.390897 4.109669 2.698866 3.30864 2.032723 2.873186 2.601587 3.131102 3.294728 3.714476 2.616358 3.016789 2.891199 3.078144 1.578528 2.028152 3.247682 2.781109 ___________________ Test results for ¦Ã1 Column B CNO vs. vs. Column A Saline Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test P value 0.0105 Exact or approximate P value? Exact P value summary * Significantly different (P < 0.05)? Yes One- or two-tailed P value? Two-tailed Sum of positive, negative ranks 81 , -10 Sum of signed ranks (W) 71 Number of pairs 13 Median of differences Median 0.4496 How effective was the pairing? rs (Spearman) 0.533 P value (one tailed) 0.0321 P value summary * Was the pairing significantly effective? Yes __________________ ¦Ã2, switching period Saline CNO 0.221138 0.246939 0.534968 0.328172 0.104861 -0.16881 0.354236 0.101619 0.88585 -0.27416 0.090627 0.386143 0.425353 0.931844 0.605923 0.614701 0.634932 0.680411 0.613462 0.494062 0.624213 0.58273 0.122694 0.509325 0.668353 0.217071 ___________________ Test results for ¦Ã2 Column A Saline vs. vs. Column B CNO Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test P value 0.6355 Exact or approximate P value? Exact P value summary ns Significantly different (P < 0.05)? No One- or two-tailed P value? Two-tailed Sum of positive, negative ranks 53 , -38 Sum of signed ranks (W) 15 Number of pairs 13 Median of differences Median 0.04148 How effective was the pairing? rs (Spearman) 0.04945 P value (one tailed) 0.4388 P value summary ns Was the pairing significantly effective? No _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Model 4 parameters during switching period, for saline/CNO sessions(each row contains data from one animal) __________________ ¦Â, switching period Saline CNO 0.267279 0.667332 0.197638 0.340034 0.140228 0.399561 0.27885 0.163756 0.898715 0.874265 0.158593 0.239833 0.856179 0.864826 0.449283 0.275438 0.139671 0.342349 0.538095 0.676508 0.361197 0.678175 0.387865 0.544443 0.369399 0.277244 ___________________ Test results for ¦Â Column B CNO vs. vs. Column A Saline Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test P value 0.0803 Exact or approximate P value? Exact P value summary ns Significantly different (P < 0.05)? No One- or two-tailed P value? Two-tailed Sum of positive, negative ranks 71 , -20 Sum of signed ranks (W) 51 Number of pairs 13 Median of differences Median 0.1384 How effective was the pairing? rs (Spearman) 0.5165 P value (one tailed) 0.0370 P value summary * Was the pairing significantly effective? Yes __________________ ¦Ã1, switching period Saline CNO 2.269682 2.365484 2.703151 2.784273 2.859797 3.939258 2.185773 2.817461 2.4625 2.887337 2.489345 3.400499 2.04326 2.949049 2.707148 3.204707 3.377975 3.72278 2.763859 3.070947 3.023106 3.20504 1.581881 2.073365 3.348833 2.671147 ___________________ Test results for ¦Ã1 Column B CNO vs. vs. Column A Saline Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test P value 0.0105 Exact or approximate P value? Exact P value summary * Significantly different (P < 0.05)? Yes One- or two-tailed P value? Two-tailed Sum of positive, negative ranks 81 , -10 Sum of signed ranks (W) 71 Number of pairs 13 Median of differences Median 0.4248 How effective was the pairing? rs (Spearman) 0.5549 P value (one tailed) 0.0263 P value summary * Was the pairing significantly effective? Yes __________________ ¦Ã2, switching period Saline CNO 0.248826 0.284039 0.41178 0.344597 0.16424 0.023158 0.165008 0.134855 0.838493 0.386316 0.173869 0.252574 0.384337 0.850928 0.392885 0.394611 0.412047 0.304086 0.531194 0.422015 0.465501 0.444064 0.102749 0.466403 0.483502 0.270307 ___________________ Test results for ¦Ã2 Column A Saline vs. vs. Column B CNO Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test P value 0.4973 Exact or approximate P value? Exact P value summary ns Significantly different (P < 0.05)? No One- or two-tailed P value? Two-tailed Sum of positive, negative ranks 56 , -35 Sum of signed ranks (W) 21 Number of pairs 13 Median of differences Median 0.03015 How effective was the pairing? rs (Spearman) 0.2692 P value (one tailed) 0.1867 P value summary ns Was the pairing significantly effective? No