Figure 4 - Source Data 5
Data related to OFC DREADD inhibition.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mean percent correct for reversing stimulus, during stable period (each row contains data from one animal)
Saline CNO
84.8735119047619 86.7194940476191
89.0922619047619 87.1103896103896
83.6845238095238 87.0960884353742
85.8184523809524 81.8404549319728
90.0535113035113 85.2619047619048
87.2448979591837 83.983843537415
81.6921768707483 89.301421957672
86.5646258503401 87.5396825396825
87.0650183150183 84.4421768707483
____________
Test results
Column B CNO
vs. vs.
Column A Saline
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test
P value 0.6523
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 18 , -27
Sum of signed ranks (W) -9
Number of pairs 9
Median of differences
Median -1.982
How effective was the pairing?
rs (Spearman) -0.35
P value (one tailed) 0.1793
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
43.83425 41.69648
51.60742 48.09949
46.15232 37.47176
41.01648 44.52913
45.85003 44.04148
43.80186 43.32647
44.99459 46.27216
44.57672 48.22917
42.12695 44.63316
____________
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 22 , -23
Sum of signed ranks (W) -1
Number of pairs 9
Median of differences
Median -0.4754
How effective was the pairing?
rs (Spearman) 0.06667
P value (one tailed) 0.4400
P value summary ns
Was the pairing significantly effective? No
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Decision boundary distance, estimated from psychometric curves AFTER switching period(in cyc/deg, each row contains data from one animal)
Saline CNO
0.0188210261577472 0.0222274437557078
0.0243764097193907 0.0244293416116655
0.026837792319872 0.0166925180364427
0.0177282603282489 0.0114179596054627
0.0285210995995179 0.0292768304892859
0.0144318232114652 0.0345357697029913
0.00906814425135497 0.0120417333873969
0.0138950843016104 0.0235452165624055
0.0229211430682362 0.0170018936236612
____________
Test results
Column B CNO
vs. vs.
Column A Saline
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test
P value 0.7344
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 26 , -19
Sum of signed ranks (W) 7
Number of pairs 9
Median of differences
Median 0.0007557
How effective was the pairing?
rs (Spearman) 0.2333
P value (one tailed) 0.2759
P value summary ns
Was the pairing significantly effective? No
__________________________________________________________
Average block length (each row contains data from one animal)
Saline CNO
78.26287 82.68125
74.64048 68.84091
84.40909 91.75
73.97059 75.9951
68.175 69.52727
74.92857 85.5625
74.20536 84.77778
77.7875 100.8214
70.81044 70.39583
____________
Test results
Column B CNO
vs. vs.
Column A Saline
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test
P value 0.0547
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 39 , -6
Sum of signed ranks (W) 33
Number of pairs 9
Median of differences
Median 4.418
How effective was the pairing?
rs (Spearman) 0.6833
P value (one tailed) 0.0252
P value summary *
Was the pairing significantly effective? Yes
__________________________________________________________
Average number of switches per session (each row contains data from one animal)
Saline CNO
4 4.1
3.6 3
2.8 2.3
4.1 4
2.9 3.33333333333333
2 2.5
2.3 2.7
2.5 1.9
3.5 2.1
____________
Test results
Column B CNO
vs. vs.
Column A Saline
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test
P value 0.3320
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 14 , -31
Sum of signed ranks (W) -17
Number of pairs 9
Median of differences
Median -0.1
How effective was the pairing?
rs (Spearman) 0.6167
P value (one tailed) 0.0429
P value summary *
Was the pairing significantly effective? Yes
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Model 1 parameters during stable period, for saline/CNO sessions(each row contains data from one animal)
__________________
¦Á1, stable period
Saline CNO
-0.16294 -0.07499
-0.06192 -0.43373
0.312985 -0.19806
-0.10871 -0.20913
0.018269 0.489905
-0.39117 0.014475
-0.12645 -0.15301
-0.11966 -0.0955
-0.03552 -0.11364
___________________
Test results for ¦Á1
Column B CNO
vs. vs.
Column A Saline
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test
P value 0.8203
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 20 , -25
Sum of signed ranks (W) -5
Number of pairs 9
Median of differences
Median -0.02656
How effective was the pairing?
rs (Spearman) -0.2833
P value (one tailed) 0.2315
P value summary ns
Was the pairing significantly effective? No
__________________
¦Á2, stable period
Saline CNO
-0.15849 -0.07817
0.712888 0.696594
0.612606 -0.19019
0.414012 0.181335
0.809058 1.316924
0.44521 1.217647
0.402486 0.24492
-0.05572 0.232935
0.292692 0.091151
___________________
Test results for ¦Á2
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 23 , -22
Sum of signed ranks (W) 1
Number of pairs 9
Median of differences
Median -0.01629
How effective was the pairing?
rs (Spearman) 0.5333
P value (one tailed) 0.0738
P value summary ns
Was the pairing significantly effective? No
__________________
¦Â, stable period
Saline CNO
-0.09962 -0.03217
0.1233 0.009134
0.074032 -0.13589
0.055894 -0.04507
0.029282 0.296861
0.00948 0.360735
0.052236 0.007147
-0.12815 -0.09238
0.058291 0.028967
___________________
Test results for ¦Â
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 23 , -22
Sum of signed ranks (W) 1
Number of pairs 9
Median of differences
Median -0.02932
How effective was the pairing?
rs (Spearman) -0.03333
P value (one tailed) 0.4742
P value summary ns
Was the pairing significantly effective? No
__________________
¦Ã1, stable period
Saline CNO
3.306077 3.179485
4.418817 4.906881
3.398845 3.008438
3.829501 3.06266
5.107139 5.144254
1.89721 2.049522
1.816578 2.445702
3.129609 2.899117
3.534499 3.373869
___________________
Test results for ¦Ã1
Column B CNO
vs. vs.
Column A Saline
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test
P value 0.7344
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 19 , -26
Sum of signed ranks (W) -7
Number of pairs 9
Median of differences
Median -0.1266
How effective was the pairing?
rs (Spearman) 0.9
P value (one tailed) 0.0010
P value summary **
Was the pairing significantly effective? Yes
__________________
¦Ã2, stable period
Saline CNO
0.07164 0.152837
0.631234 0.462163
0.111521 0.005458
0.426505 0.128909
0.360579 0.996231
0.319581 0.8928
0.198987 0.273837
-0.06841 -0.04703
0.367217 0.416189
___________________
Test results for ¦Ã2
Column B CNO
vs. vs.
Column A Saline
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test
P value 0.6523
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 , -18
Sum of signed ranks (W) 9
Number of pairs 9
Median of differences
Median 0.04897
How effective was the pairing?
rs (Spearman) 0.55
P value (one tailed) 0.0664
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
-0.02381 0.036444
0.08329 0.109013
-0.04105 -0.06043
0.069607 -0.00824
0.027731 0.150012
0.175488 0.270594
0.011418 0.074559
-0.0861 -0.07315
0.057296 0.046537
__________________
Test results for ¦Â
Column B CNO
vs. vs.
Column A Saline
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test
P value 0.2031
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 , -11
Sum of signed ranks (W) 23
Number of pairs 9
Median of differences
Median 0.02572
How effective was the pairing?
rs (Spearman) 0.7333
P value (one tailed) 0.0156
P value summary *
Was the pairing significantly effective? Yes
________________
¦Ã1, stable period
Saline CNO
3.365774 3.191415
4.382718 4.779464
3.180944 3.023737
3.775919 3.036301
4.831849 4.767247
1.852583 1.896859
1.858452 2.471238
3.141993 2.835827
3.521703 3.392997
___________________
Test results for ¦Ã1
Column B CNO
vs. vs.
Column A Saline
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test
P value 0.4961
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 16 , -29
Sum of signed ranks (W) -13
Number of pairs 9
Median of differences
Median -0.1287
How effective was the pairing?
rs (Spearman) 0.9333
P value (one tailed) 0.0004
P value summary ***
Was the pairing significantly effective? Yes
________________
¦Ã2, stable period
Saline CNO
0.12846 0.285517
0.524116 0.505595
0.067016 0.034011
0.442279 0.092899
0.455626 0.837418
0.540861 0.795327
0.080653 0.364915
-0.06646 -0.04291
0.371365 0.402242
___________________
Test results for ¦Ã2
Column B CNO
vs. vs.
Column A Saline
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test
P value 0.3008
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 32 , -13
Sum of signed ranks (W) 19
Number of pairs 9
Median of differences
Median 0.03088
How effective was the pairing?
rs (Spearman) 0.8333
P value (one tailed) 0.0041
P value summary **
Was the pairing significantly effective? Yes
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Model 1 parameters during switching period, for saline/CNO sessions(each row contains data from one animal)
__________________
¦Á1, switching period
Saline CNO
0.628391 0.619667
-0.23022 -0.75645
0.382995 0.779206
-0.11654 0.161736
-0.94926 -0.92363
-1.4052 -0.11827
-0.262 0.01838
-0.55075 0.121929
0.011097 -0.58101
___________________
Test results for ¦Á1
Column B CNO
vs. vs.
Column A Saline
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test
P value 0.3594
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 , -14
Sum of signed ranks (W) 17
Number of pairs 9
Median of differences
Median 0.2783
How effective was the pairing?
rs (Spearman) 0.6
P value (one tailed) 0.0484
P value summary *
Was the pairing significantly effective? Yes
__________________
¦Á2, switching period
Saline CNO
-0.60612 -0.30676
0.003536 0.260299
0.207276 -0.79684
0.018327 0.006918
0.262417 0.510662
-0.26668 -0.17261
-0.0089 0.276804
0.008641 0.012673
0.116313 -0.11207
___________________
Test results for ¦Á2
Column B CNO
vs. vs.
Column A Saline
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test
P value 0.4258
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 , -15
Sum of signed ranks (W) 15
Number of pairs 9
Median of differences
Median 0.09407
How effective was the pairing?
rs (Spearman) 0.2
P value (one tailed) 0.3067
P value summary ns
Was the pairing significantly effective? No
__________________
¦Â, switching period
Saline CNO
0.437248 0.669862
0.304818 0.314183
0.176434 0.9009
0.036291 0.256307
0.500406 0.824885
0.866954 0.549882
0.530134 0.288926
0.93934 0.27074
0.277314 0.684363
___________________
Test results for ¦Â
Column B CNO
vs. vs.
Column A Saline
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test
P value 0.5703
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 28 , -17
Sum of signed ranks (W) 11
Number of pairs 9
Median of differences
Median 0.22
How effective was the pairing?
rs (Spearman) -0.2
P value (one tailed) 0.3067
P value summary ns
Was the pairing significantly effective? No
__________________
¦Ã1, switching period
Saline CNO
2.76218 2.47687
3.648 3.95494
2.737547 2.162143
4.016913 2.586242
3.016948 3.903423
1.773787 1.680296
1.504117 2.292063
2.186322 2.315267
2.073114 2.723753
___________________
Test results for ¦Ã1
Column B CNO
vs. vs.
Column A Saline
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test
P value 0.6523
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 , -18
Sum of signed ranks (W) 9
Number of pairs 9
Median of differences
Median 0.1289
How effective was the pairing?
rs (Spearman) 0.65
P value (one tailed) 0.0333
P value summary *
Was the pairing significantly effective? Yes
__________________
¦Ã2, switching period
Saline CNO
0.327132 -0.07443
0.579035 0.803428
0.007926 -0.37392
0.415856 0.065728
0.30074 0.49514
0.491634 0.265213
0.103936 0.174003
0.096921 0.328179
0.11695 0.437314
___________________
Test results for ¦Ã2
Column A Saline
vs. vs.
Column B CNO
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test
P value 0.5703
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 28 , -17
Sum of signed ranks (W) 11
Number of pairs 9
Median of differences
Median -0.07007
How effective was the pairing?
rs (Spearman) 0.3667
P value (one tailed) 0.1681
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
0.195672 0.399366
0.283081 0.472987
0.244853 0.285013
0.025965 0.303719
0.251157 0.467574
0.328095 0.460754
0.486189 0.390428
0.751999 0.286936
0.329876 0.264517
___________________
Test results for ¦Â
Column B CNO
vs. vs.
Column A Saline
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test
P value 0.3594
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 , -14
Sum of signed ranks (W) 17
Number of pairs 9
Median of differences
Median 0.1327
How effective was the pairing?
rs (Spearman) -0.1667
P value (one tailed) 0.3389
P value summary ns
Was the pairing significantly effective? No
__________________
¦Ã1, switching period
Saline CNO
2.651287 2.292389
3.712804 3.88362
2.46687 2.041356
3.999106 2.546563
2.959883 3.683521
1.700141 1.747911
1.596722 2.138168
2.248789 2.232426
2.023365 2.677879
___________________
Test results for ¦Ã1
Column B CNO
vs. vs.
Column A Saline
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test
P value 0.7344
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 26 , -19
Sum of signed ranks (W) 7
Number of pairs 9
Median of differences
Median 0.04777
How effective was the pairing?
rs (Spearman) 0.65
P value (one tailed) 0.0333
P value summary *
Was the pairing significantly effective? Yes
__________________
¦Ã2, switching period
Saline CNO
0.307538 0.039723
0.474586 0.71029
0.223421 -0.06805
0.390491 0.097168
0.189543 0.296395
0.114484 0.200108
0.078643 0.251264
0.07284 0.380701
0.164364 0.284136
___________________
Test results for ¦Ã2
Column A Saline
vs. vs.
Column B CNO
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test
P value 0.9102
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 21 , -24
Sum of signed ranks (W) -3
Number of pairs 9
Median of differences
Median -0.1069
How effective was the pairing?
rs (Spearman) -0.1833
P value (one tailed) 0.3218
P value summary ns
Was the pairing significantly effective? No