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)
__________________
1, 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 1

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

__________________
2, 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 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	-0.1556
	
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

__________________
, 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 

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

__________________
1, 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 1

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
__________________
2, 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 2

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)
________________
, 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 

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
________________
1, 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 1

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
________________
2, 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 2

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)
__________________
1, 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 1

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

__________________
2, 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 2

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

__________________
, 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 

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
__________________
1, 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 1

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

__________________
2, 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 2

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)

__________________
, 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 

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

__________________
1, 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 1

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

__________________
2, 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 2

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