Comparisons of pre-shift CR acquisition rates between dEBC and tEBC, and between with Hip-CS and with tone-CS.

<p>Four curves depicting pre-shift CR acquisition rates in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0178502#pone.0178502.g003" target="_blank">Fig 3</a> were rearranged and illustrated. Data represent mean ± SEM. (A, B), comparison of CR acquisition between paradigms of dEBC and tEBC. dEBC establishment (black square) showed higher acquisition rate than tEBC (space square), for both learning with Hip-CS (A, n = 6, for both dEBC and tEBC) and tone-CS (B, n = 7, for dEBC; n = 5, for tEBC), confirmed by statistically significant main effects of group [Fig 4A and 4F(1, 10) = 439.401, *p < 0.05; Fig 4B and 4F(1, 10) = 57.1, *p < 0.05], a two-way repeated measures ANOVA, followed by the LSD post hoc test; Only 6 sessions of data from trace paradigm are displayed (Fig 4A and 4B) to equal the time course with delay paradigm. (Fig 4C and 4D), comparison of CR acquisition between with Hip-CS and with tone-CS, across 6 or 12 training sessions (n = 6, for Hip-CS/dEBC; n = 7, for tone-CS/dEBC; n = 6, for Hip-CS/tEBC; n = 5, for tone-CS/tEBC). dEBC establishment showed higher acquisition rates when cued with Hip-CS (black square) than with tone-CS (space square), but tEBC establishment showed lower acquisition rates when cued with Hip-CS (black square) than with tone-CS (space square), confirmed by statistically significant main effects of group [Fig 4C and 4F(1, 11) = 5.635, *p < 0.05; Fig 4D and 4F(1, 9) = 70.117, *p < 0.05], a two-way repeated measures ANOVA, followed by the LSD post hoc test.</p>