Figure 4 - Source Data 2

Data related to M2 manipulation control (GFP in biM2) group.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mean percent correct for reversing stimulus, during stable period (each row contains data from one animal)

Saline	CNO
88.5383597883598	90.1318027210884
80.0496031746032	89.2857142857143
86.6850649350649	88.0952380952381
81.1607142857143	83.3055555555555
84.0151338313103	88.2948908730159
84.572940287226	84.0354437229437
79.1418650793651	82.577380952381
85.0076083064805	83.7225274725275
81.1111111111111	77.6568405139834
82.321648486981	80.6607142857143
78.0418192918193	79.1904761904762
77.0627289377289	77.9092261904762
82.3060273060273	83.989417989418
____________
Test results

Column B	CNO
vs.	vs.
Column A	Saline
	
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test	
  P value	0.1272
  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	68 , -23
  Sum of signed ranks (W)	45
  Number of pairs	13
	
Median of differences	
  Median	1.41
	
How effective was the pairing?	
  rs (Spearman)	0.6484
  P value (one tailed)	0.0097
  P value summary	**
  Was the pairing significantly effective?	Yes

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mean percent correct for reversing stimulus, during switching period (each row contains data from one animal)

Saline	CNO
43.3996558996559	33.8624338624339
40.6123222016079	49.2724867724868
46.8456514550265	41.417044595616
44.4338151927438	43.1394993894994
45.5203823953824	45.3648589065256
39.6344627594628	46.7805177626606
53.8148148148148	52.7970779220779
49.3426832829007	53.3406084656085
49.7534013605442	51.8458393458393
51.0045129162776	50.3868384031428
47.2560783572688	50.7013125763126
51.9655257936508	53.4507275132275
47.4339402427638	55.3661616161616
____________
Test results

Column B	CNO
vs.	vs.
Column A	Saline
	
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test	
  P value	0.3757
  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	59 , -32
  Sum of signed ranks (W)	27
  Number of pairs	13
	
Median of differences	
  Median	1.485
	
How effective was the pairing?	
  rs (Spearman)	0.6978
  P value (one tailed)	0.0051
  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
0.0346994103993655	0.0257819548497012
0.00795994429665403	0.0271707297299647
0.0287772504668674	0.0153664477126622
0.0190739152635909	0.0200262830431753
0.0235668733534663	0.0174432568115725
0.018303743304614	0.023355838173852
0.0221099576536765	0.0146103172464363
0.0152667346491197	0.0184182491344899
0.0165252733158873	0.0147988906466988
0.0201495847359587	0.0196644000116296
0.0135442031372123	0.0119040840743969
0.0118449635493978	0.0129247504634045
0.0179065352892087	0.0270508263570704

____________
Test results

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	42 , -49
  Sum of signed ranks (W)	-7
  Number of pairs	13
	
Median of differences	
  Median	-0.0004852
	
How effective was the pairing?	
  rs (Spearman)	0.08791
  P value (one tailed)	0.3892
  P value summary	ns
  Was the pairing significantly effective?	No

__________________________________________________________
Average block length (each row contains data from one animal)

Saline	CNO
99	91
86.75	77.4
78.6608391608392	72.5673076923077
86.25	74.8712121212121
76.6666666666667	78.0666666666667
80.3333333333333	74.6616161616162
66.58	70.9541666666667
69.3508771929825	65.7252747252747
64.7791666666667	72.6
67.9429723502304	64.0630952380952
70.7214285714286	72.7166666666667
68.1678321678322	73.7444444444444
68.6590909090909	66.0277777777778

____________
Test results

Column B	CNO
vs.	vs.
Column A	Saline
	
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test	
  P value	0.1909
  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 , -65
  Sum of signed ranks (W)	-39
  Number of pairs	13
	
Median of differences	
  Median	-3.626
	
How effective was the pairing?	
  rs (Spearman)	0.7143
  P value (one tailed)	0.0040
  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	3.5
2.42857142857143	2
4	4.28571428571429
3.85714285714286	3.71428571428571
6	5.42857142857143
3.28571428571429	3.71428571428571
4.69230769230769	4.44444444444445
4.07692307692308	3.88888888888889
3.30769230769231	2.77777777777778
5.38461538461539	5.44444444444445
3.15384615384615	3.33333333333333
2.61538461538462	2.44444444444444
2.84615384615385	2.55555555555556
____________
Test results

Column B	CNO
vs.	vs.
Column A	Saline
	
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test	
  P value	0.0942
  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 , -70
  Sum of signed ranks (W)	-49
  Number of pairs	13
	
Median of differences	
  Median	-0.188
	
How effective was the pairing?	
  rs (Spearman)	0.9366
  P value (one tailed)	<0.0001
  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)
__________________
1, stable period

Saline	CNO
-0.24401	0.158842
-0.05973	-0.25032
-0.02788	0.025483
-0.01556	-0.15145
-0.07125	-0.0976
0.12154	-0.33385
0.314072	-0.23005
0.039888	-0.1851
-0.12929	-0.06167
-0.03482	-0.09362
-0.14956	-0.25984
-0.21881	-0.18169
-0.20908	-1.11014
___________________
Test results for 1

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	20 , -71
  Sum of signed ranks (W)	-51
  Number of pairs	13
	
Median of differences	
  Median	-0.1103
	
How effective was the pairing?	
  rs (Spearman)	-0.1923
  P value (one tailed)	0.2646
  P value summary	ns
  Was the pairing significantly effective?	No
	
	
  Was the pairing significantly effective?	No

__________________
2, stable period

Saline	CNO
-0.28727	-0.30165
0.475548	0.343167
0.598401	0.202562
0.418745	0.388751
0.379318	0.668352
0.194705	0.326038
0.404397	0.457005
0.374353	0.90191
-0.01334	2.056323
0.950392	0.19661
0.080172	0.130602
1.00215	0.889254
0.696039	0.597233
___________________
Test results for 2

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	-0.01438
	
How effective was the pairing?	
  rs (Spearman)	0.1099
  P value (one tailed)	0.3616
  P value summary	ns
  Was the pairing significantly effective?	No

__________________
, stable period

Saline	CNO
0.070075	0.142579
0.045093	-0.13392
0.098507	0.097373
0.032436	0.083371
0.019267	0.062664
0.192324	0.113653
0.371243	0.174662
0.359553	0.405735
-0.11654	0.585428
0.32365	0.085319
-0.06194	-0.00992
0.415426	0.38215
0.370374	0.331073
___________________
Test results for 

Column B	CNO
vs.	vs.
Column A	Saline
	
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test	
  P value	0.8926
  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	43 , -48
  Sum of signed ranks (W)	-5
  Number of pairs	13
	
Median of differences	
  Median	-0.001134
	
How effective was the pairing?	
  rs (Spearman)	0.4505
  P value (one tailed)	0.0624
  P value summary	ns
  Was the pairing significantly effective?	No

__________________
1, stable period

Saline	CNO
2.803763	3.235482
2.430239	2.31088
2.727233	3.324104
2.697393	2.645819
3.379784	3.833131
4.000972	3.236943
5.129633	5.066122
5.005965	5.643376
4.691407	4.353423
4.811196	4.862065
3.087583	3.337479
3.51616	3.340508
4.533134	6.015236
___________________
Test results for 1

Column B	CNO
vs.	vs.
Column A	Saline
	
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test	
  P value	0.4143
  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	58 , -33
  Sum of signed ranks (W)	25
  Number of pairs	13
	
Median of differences	
  Median	0.05087
	
How effective was the pairing?	
  rs (Spearman)	0.8681
  P value (one tailed)	0.0001
  P value summary	***
  Was the pairing significantly effective?	Yes
__________________
2, stable period

Saline	CNO
0.516302	0.687571
0.265373	0.029288
0.375293	0.502912
0.167685	0.396642
0.236547	0.408243
0.664673	0.66854
0.981317	0.695548
1.262265	1.384809
-0.0687	1.509881
1.120276	0.499097
0.029461	0.21227
1.208682	0.938562
1.221437	2.073681
___________________
Test results for 2

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	0.1276
	
How effective was the pairing?	
  rs (Spearman)	0.533
  P value (one tailed)	0.0321
  P value summary	*
  Was the pairing significantly effective?	Yes

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Model 4 parameters during stable period, for saline/CNO sessions(each row contains data from one animal)
________________
, stable period

Saline	CNO
0.195974	0.132916
0.039339	-0.06739
0.072861	0.114961
0.028441	0.091765
-0.01856	0.073594
0.152232	0.162765
0.288424	0.27181
0.349156	0.439224
-0.07901	0.504939
0.294914	0.093351
-0.00839	0.044847
0.421721	0.278634
0.384939	0.528554
__________________
Test results for 

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	0.0421
	
How effective was the pairing?	
  rs (Spearman)	0.5165
  P value (one tailed)	0.0370
  P value summary	*
  Was the pairing significantly effective?	Yes

________________
1, stable period

Saline	CNO
2.821245	3.213867
2.310652	2.216936
2.622825	3.248928
2.622618	2.672278
3.349827	3.76667
3.902506	3.287456
4.97367	4.907368
4.974607	5.549831
4.702339	4.061711
4.681791	4.838593
3.063119	3.360213
3.433262	3.292131
4.432448	5.74315
___________________
Test results for 1

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	60 , -31
  Sum of signed ranks (W)	29
  Number of pairs	13
	
Median of differences	
  Median	0.1568
	
How effective was the pairing?	
  rs (Spearman)	0.8846
  P value (one tailed)	<0.0001
  P value summary	****
  Was the pairing significantly effective?	Yes

________________
2, stable period

Saline	CNO
0.694796	0.687188
0.258923	-0.04017
0.348609	0.607454
0.172905	0.386434
0.139149	0.45467
0.675915	0.619682
0.972678	0.864585
1.295989	1.471872
-0.06081	1.433354
1.101568	0.478003
0.081445	0.192454
1.186516	0.726935
1.220775	1.954103
___________________
Test results for 2

Column B	CNO
vs.	vs.
Column A	Saline
	
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	0.111
	
How effective was the pairing?	
  rs (Spearman)	0.5879
  P value (one tailed)	0.0190
  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)
__________________
1, switching period

Switching	Stable
0.060801	-0.24401
0.320751	-0.05973
0.092966	-0.02788
0.048922	-0.01556
0.240278	-0.07125
-0.15745	0.12154
-0.23369	0.314072
-0.09942	0.039888
-0.27254	-0.12929
-0.22896	-0.03482
-0.05239	-0.14956
-0.00398	-0.21881
-0.68729	-0.20908
___________________
Test results for 1

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	28 , -63
  Sum of signed ranks (W)	-35
  Number of pairs	13
	
Median of differences	
  Median	-0.04417
	
How effective was the pairing?	
  rs (Spearman)	0.5659
  P value (one tailed)	0.0237
  P value summary	*
  Was the pairing significantly effective?	Yes
__________________
2, switching period

Switching	Stable
-0.17308	-0.28727
-0.2963	0.475548
-0.43921	0.598401
0.179453	0.418745
-0.29848	0.379318
-0.6067	0.194705
-0.27342	0.404397
-0.083	0.374353
-0.39487	-0.01334
-0.17077	0.950392
0.028654	0.080172
-0.18875	1.00215
-0.17297	0.696039
___________________
Test results for 2

Column B	CNO
vs.	vs.
Column A	Saline
	
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test	
  P value	0.4143
  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	58 , -33
  Sum of signed ranks (W)	25
  Number of pairs	13
	
Median of differences	
  Median	-0.00629
	
How effective was the pairing?	
  rs (Spearman)	-0.2473
  P value (one tailed)	0.2075
  P value summary	ns
  Was the pairing significantly effective?	No

__________________
, switching period

Saline	CNO
0.264016	0.044978
0.320549	0.500178
0.251594	0.123447
0.574654	0.243772
0.324991	0.346639
0.311105	0.304915
0.57955	0.303085
0.29769	0.538758
0.957561	0.512912
0.350319	0.395852
0.274172	0.237261
0.199487	0.718562
0.391692	0.737944
___________________
Test results for 

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	44 , -47
  Sum of signed ranks (W)	-3
  Number of pairs	13
	
Median of differences	
  Median	-0.00619
	
How effective was the pairing?	
  rs (Spearman)	0.2198
  P value (one tailed)	0.2351
  P value summary	ns
  Was the pairing significantly effective?	No
__________________
1, switching period

Saline	CNO
3.067727	2.271054
1.623022	1.85135
2.882046	2.87515
2.13327	2.232428
2.97359	2.620582
3.262703	2.9692
5.132091	5.166434
4.472997	4.421966
5.479434	4.184434
4.511131	5.201114
3.260895	2.756132
3.398886	2.841062
4.01378	3.857166
___________________
Test results for 1

Column B	CNO
vs.	vs.
Column A	Saline
	
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test	
  P value	0.1272
  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 , -68
  Sum of signed ranks (W)	-45
  Number of pairs	13
	
Median of differences	
  Median	-0.1566
	
How effective was the pairing?	
  rs (Spearman)	0.8901
  P value (one tailed)	<0.0001
  P value summary	****
  Was the pairing significantly effective?	Yes

__________________
2, switching period

Saline	CNO
0.443782	0.374752
0.245092	0.190272
0.520195	0.410668
-0.27571	0.270304
0.361169	0.295599
0.525161	0.348267
0.893998	0.595198
0.457059	0.852711
0.803252	1.128707
0.552885	0.907856
0.331994	0.234094
0.440494	0.704753
0.637935	0.77286
___________________
Test results for 2

Column A	Saline
vs.	vs.
Column B	CNO
	
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	0.05482
	
How effective was the pairing?	
  rs (Spearman)	0.7637
  P value (one tailed)	0.0017
  P value summary	**
  Was the pairing significantly effective?	Yes

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Model 4 parameters during switching period, for saline/CNO sessions(each row contains data from one animal)

__________________
, switching period

Saline	CNO
0.212327	-0.02181
0.220775	0.532449
0.188453	0.041931
0.796402	0.162094
0.266019	0.439414
0.100032	0.252058
0.491673	0.252756
0.246328	0.413577
0.949242	0.531025
0.270956	0.242575
0.27358	0.236723
0.178683	0.393302
0.212156	0.752323
___________________
Test results for 

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	44 , -47
  Sum of signed ranks (W)	-3
  Number of pairs	13
	
Median of differences	
  Median	-0.02838
	
How effective was the pairing?	
  rs (Spearman)	0.02198
  P value (one tailed)	0.4747
  P value summary	ns
  Was the pairing significantly effective?	No

__________________
1, switching period

Saline	CNO
3.08979	2.299607
1.612	1.718872
2.934945	2.684348
2.098682	2.194314
2.932697	2.692793
3.260399	3.001515
5.208405	5.214671
4.488344	4.48405
5.573378	4.356405
4.615237	5.188736
3.243664	2.770761
3.466266	2.985059
4.162446	3.880087
___________________
Test results for 1

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	20 , -71
  Sum of signed ranks (W)	-51
  Number of pairs	13
	
Median of differences	
  Median	-0.2506
	
How effective was the pairing?	
  rs (Spearman)	0.9396
  P value (one tailed)	<0.0001
  P value summary	****
  Was the pairing significantly effective?	Yes
__________________
2, switching period

Saline	CNO
0.394004	0.320338
0.242286	0.2147
0.373837	0.347489
-0.30952	0.240123
0.310392	0.159979
0.255312	0.267366
0.700186	0.464577
0.348349	0.58525
0.787756	0.848476
0.38683	0.484062
0.313901	0.223818
0.346869	0.351421
0.334576	0.685612
___________________
Test results for 2

Column A	Saline
vs.	vs.
Column B	CNO
	
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	39 , -52
  Sum of signed ranks (W)	-13
  Number of pairs	13
	
Median of differences	
  Median	-0.004552
	
How effective was the pairing?	
  rs (Spearman)	0.6978
  P value (one tailed)	0.0051
  P value summary	**
  Was the pairing significantly effective?	Yes
