Skip to main content

Advertisement

Fig. 3 | Molecular Brain

Fig. 3

From: Optimizing reproducibility of operant testing through reinforcer standardization: identification of key nutritional constituents determining reward strength in touchscreens

Fig. 3

Within-session response rate analysis in the FR5 and PR4 schedules. a. Group mean responses per minute in each trial under an unrestricted FR5 schedule. b. Predicted peak response rate in FR (one-way ANOVA, F = 5.36, df = 2, 11, p < 0.05). Post-hoc testing revealed that PM and SM supported a significantly higher predicted peak response rate compared to LM (p < 0.05). c. Analysis of response decay rate in FR (one-way ANOVA, F = 4.53, df = 2, 11, p < 0.05). Post-hoc testing revealed a trend toward a higher decay rate in SM than in both PM (p = 0.06) and LM (p = 0.052). d. Group mean responses per minute per trial under a PR4 schedule. e. The predicted peak response rate in PR (one-way ANOVA, F = 6.25, df = 2,39, p < 0.005). Post-hoc tests revealed significant differences between PM and LM (p < 0.01) and SM and LM (p < 0.01). f. Response decay rate in PR (one-way ANOVA, F = 0.62, df = 2,39, p = 0.54). #p < 0.05 in one-way ANOVA; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 in Tukey’s post hoc comparison

Back to article page