Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Design of the 4-stimulus suboptimal choice experiment using a spatial discrimination between two white keys.

The left alternative shows possible outcomes for choosing the Discriminative alternative while the right alternative shows the Nondiscriminative outcome.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Design of the 3-stimulus suboptimal choice experiment using a spatial discrimination between two white keys.

The left alternative shows possible outcomes for choosing the Discriminative alternative while the right alternative shows the Nondiscriminative outcome.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Design of the 2-stimulus suboptimal choice experiment using a visual discrimination.

The left alternative shows possible outcomes for choosing the Discriminative alternative while the right alternative shows the Nondiscriminative outcome.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Experiment 1: Mean percentage choice (± SEM) of the Discriminative alternative as a function of session for Phases 1–3.

Vertical lines indicate phase changes, the horizontal line indicates indifference between the two altrnatives (50%), and the solid horizontal line indicates sessions where the left response key intermittently malfunctioned.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 1.

Average food reinforcers earned from each alternative across the last five sessions of Phases 1–3 in Experiment 1.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 5.

Experiment 1: Mean logged latencies (± SEM) to choose (left panel) and terminal link responses (right panel) for Phases 1–3.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Experiment 2: Mean percentage choice (± SEM) of the Discriminative alternative as a function of session for Phases 1–3.

Vertical lines indicate phase changes while the horizontal line indicates chance (50%).

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 2.

Average food reinforcers earned from each altenrative across the last five sessions Phases 1–3 in Experiment 2.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 7.

Experiment 2: Mean logged latencies (± SEM) to choose (left panel) and terminal link responses (right panel) to the terminal link stimuli for Phases 1–3.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Individual fits of Eqs 3 and 4 on the average percent Discriminatve alternative choice as a function of Phases 1–3 in Experiment 1 (left) and 2 (right).

More »

Fig 8 Expand