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