Fig 1.
Saccharin CS intake is plotted across taste-ID conditioning trials for all individual rats within each training group [High LiCl, A; Low LiCl, B; Lactose, C; NaCl, D] in Experiment 1a. Group mean ± SEM saccharin CS intake on the first and last training trials is shown to the right of the individual plots. A given rat in each training group is represented by the same symbol across all Experiment 1a figures. Histograms with different gray letters were found to be significantly different from one another with post hoc t-tests, Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons.
Fig 2.
Filled histograms show mean total intake of the saccharin CS on the single-bottle test for each training group in Experiment 1a after taste-ID conditioning, with the total intake of each individual rat within each training group indicated by the white symbols.
A given rat in each training group is represented by the same symbol across all Experiment 1a figures. Histograms with different gray letters were found to be significantly different from one another with post hoc t-tests, Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons.
Table 1.
Statistical outcomes for Experiment 1.
Fig 3.
Top panel: Filled histograms show mean total ingestive (A) and aversive (B) taste reactivity responses elicited by a brief intraoral infusion of saccharin, the CS, prior to taste-ID conditioning, for each of the four training groups from Experiment 1a. Bottom panel: Filled histograms show mean total ingestive (C) and aversive (D) taste reactivity responses elicited by a brief intraoral infusion of saccharin, the CS, after taste-ID conditioning for each training group from Experiment 1a. The responses of each individual rat within each training group are plotted in the white symbols. The symbol for a given rat within each group corresponds across graphs in this figure and other Experiment 1a figures. Histograms with different gray letters were found to be significantly different from one another with post hoc t-tests, Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons. The asterisk indicates post-training score was significantly different from pre-training score, after Bonferroni correction.
Fig 4.
Filled histograms show mean post-conditioning preference for the saccharin CS on the two-bottle choice test for each training group for Experiment 1a, with the preference score of each individual rat within each training group indicated by the white symbols.
A given rat in each training group is represented by the same symbol across all Experiment 1a figures. Histograms with different gray letters were found to be significantly different from one another with post hoc t-tests, Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons.
Fig 5.
A: Saccharin CS intake is plotted across taste-ID conditioning trials for all individual rats in the Intermediate LiCl group of Experiment 1b. B: Group mean ± SEM saccharin CS intake on the first and last training trials [t(4) = 6.39, p = 0.003]. C and D: Filled histograms show mean total intake of the saccharin CS on the single-bottle test and mean saccharin preference score, respectively, after saccharin-ID Intermediate LiCl conditioning. E and F: Filled histograms show mean total ingestive and aversive taste reactivity responses elicited by a brief intraoral infusion of saccharin, the CS, before and after taste-ID Intermediate LiCl conditioning, respectively [Ingestive pre versus post: t(4) = 2.98, p = 0.04; Aversive pre versus post: t(4) = 1.63, p = 0.18]. In each panel, the white symbols represent individual rats and the same symbol is used for a given rat across all panels. Asterisks indicate significant differences.
Fig 6.
Saccharin CS intake is plotted across taste-ID conditioning trials for all individual rats within each training group [High LiCl, A; Lactose, B; NaCl, C] in Experiment 2. Group mean ± SEM saccharin CS intake on the first and last training trials is shown to the right of the individual plots. A given rat in each training group is represented by the same symbol across all Experiment 2 figures. Histograms with different gray letters were found to be significantly different from one another with post hoc t-tests, Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons.
Fig 7.
Filled histograms show mean total licks (A), lick rate in the first minute of the session (B), overall lick burst size (C) and lick burst number (D) for the saccharin CS on the final taste-ID conditioning trial for each training group for Experiment 2, with each individual rat within each training group indicated by the white symbols. Note that each rat within a training group is represented by the same symbol shape in all graphs for Experiment 2. Histograms with different gray letters were found to be significantly different from one another with post hoc t-tests, Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons.
Table 2.
Statistical outcomes for Experiment 2.
Fig 8.
Filled histograms show mean total intake of the saccharin CS on the single-bottle test for each training group after taste-ID conditioning for Experiment 2, with the total intake of each individual rat within each training group indicated by the white symbols.
A given rat in each training group is represented by the same symbol across all Experiment 2 figures. Histograms with different gray letters were found to be significantly different from one another with post hoc t-tests, Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons.
Fig 9.
Filled histograms show median breakpoint for the saccharin reinforcer before and after taste-ID conditioning for the three training groups in Experiment 2.
The breakpoints by the individual rats within each training group are indicated in the symbols. A given rat in each training group is represented by the same symbol across all Experiment 2 figures. Post-conditioning histograms with different gray letters were found to be significantly different from one another with post hoc Mann-Whitney U tests, Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons.
Fig 10.
Filled histograms show mean post-conditioning preference for the saccharin CS on the two-bottle choice test for each training group for Experiment 2, with the preference score of each individual rat within each training group indicated by the white symbols.
A given rat in each training group is represented by the same symbol across all Experiment 2 figures. Histograms with different gray letters were found to be significantly different from one another with post hoc t-tests, Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons.