Skip to main content

Advertisement

Fig. 4 | Molecular Brain

Fig. 4

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

Fig. 4

Rate of training and response accuracy in touchscreen ratio schedules a. Sessions required to reach criterion (30 FR5 trials completed in 60 min) (one-way ANOVA, F = 24.75, df = 2,12, p < 0.0001). b. Response accuracy [correct responses × 100 / correct and blank responses (%); one-way ANOVA, F = 3.91, df = 2,10, p = 0.056] in the unrestricted FR5 schedule. c. Response accuracy in the PR4 schedule [correct responses × 100 / correct and blank responses (%); one-way ANOVA, F = 3.76, df = 2,11, p = 0.057]. d. Relationship between the number of trials completed and response accuracy in FR (Pearson’s r; whole, r = 0.61, p = 0.001; LM, r = 0.84, p = 0.04; SM, r = 0.01, p = 0.98; PM, r = 0.38, p = 0.18). e. Relationship between perceived incentive value (breakpoint) and response accuracy in PR (whole, r = 0.75, p < 0.001; LM, r = 0.90, p = 0.001; SM, r = 0.14, p = 0.67; PM, r = 0.63, p = 0.002). n = 4–7 per group. LM, low-fat milk; SM, strawberry-flavored milk; PM, plain white milk. ***p < 0.001 by Tukey’s post hoc comparison

Back to article page