4, p > 0.1). Both groups exhibited a gradual decline in performance as the morphed stimuli became more similar (repeated-measures ANOVA for morph level: F[1,13] = 67.0, p < 0.001). Nonetheless, both groups performed above chance across each of the 14 different click here morph levels (all t > 2.5, all p < .05). For the most difficult stimulus pair, control animals performed at 55.3% ± 1.3% and the to-be-lesioned group performed at 53.1% ± 1.2%. Postoperative performance: postoperative discrimination reacquisition. The CON and PR groups reacquired discrimination after surgery in a similar number of trials (CON: 458 ± 268; PR: 491 ± 173; t[10] = 0.10, p > 0.1). We calculated a savings score

for the reacquisition of discrimination (1 − [postoperative trials-to-criterion/preoperative trials-to-criterion]). The two groups exhibited similar and substantial savings scores for discrimination (CON: 97% ± 1.0%; PR: 96% ± 1.0%; t[10] = 0.7, p > 0.1). Postoperative performance: morph probe trials. Figure 6 shows the postoperative performance of the CON group and

the PR group during the morph probe trial phase of training. The two groups performed similarly on the basic discrimination trials (CON: 88.5% ± 2.3%; PR: 88.7% ± 1.9%; t[10] = 0.8, p > 0.1). The groups also performed similarly across the 14 morph levels (repeated-measures ANOVA for group: F[1,10] = 0.02, p > 0.1). Specifically, the two groups exhibited a similar selleck chemical decline in performance as the morphed

stimuli became more similar to each other (repeated-measures ANOVA for morph level: F[1,13] = 102.0, p < 0.0001) and there was no group-by-morph-level interaction (F[1,13] = 0.80, p > 0.1). PAK6 The mean difference between groups across the 14 morph levels was 0.3% (range: −3.6% to +4.7%). Both groups performed above chance at every morph level except the most difficult morph level, morph level 14 (morph levels 1–13: all t > 2.5, all p < .05). At level 14, both groups performed at the chance level (CON, 52.1% ± 5.5%; PR 50.0% ± 5.0%). These data indicate that PR lesions did not affect performance at any morph difficulty level, including the most difficult levels that had the highest amount of feature ambiguity. Postoperative performance: partially occluded probe trials. Figure 7A shows the postoperative performance of the CON group and the PR group during the partially occluded probe trial phase of testing. The two groups performed similarly on the basic discrimination trials (CON: 84.1% ± 2.9%; PR: 81.0% ± 2.3%; t[9] = 0.9, p > 0.1). The groups also performed similarly across the four different occluded quadrant probe trials (upper left, upper right, lower left, and lower right) (repeated-measures ANOVA for group: F[1,9] = 0.9, p > 0.1). For both groups, some occluded conditions affected performance more than others (repeated-measures ANOVA for occluded quadrant: F[1,3] = 28.0, p < 0.0001).