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)
__________________
1, 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 1

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
__________________
2, 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 2

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

__________________
, 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 

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

__________________
1, 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 1

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
__________________
2, 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 2

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)
________________
, 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 

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
________________
1, 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 1

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
________________
2, 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 2

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)
__________________
1, 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 1

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
__________________
2, 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 2

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
__________________
, 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 

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

__________________
1, 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 1

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
__________________
2, 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 2

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)
__________________
, 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 

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
__________________
1, 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 1

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

__________________
2, 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 2

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