Supplementary Figure 7: Effects of contingency on amygdala LFP potentiation.
From: Evaluation of ambiguous associations in the amygdala by learning the structure of the environment
(a) Example traces before, and after conditioning for a representative animal each in the Control II group (left) and Pairings First group (right). Red arrows indicate the peak depolarization. (b) Averaged peak depolarizations in the CTL II and Pairings First groups before (Habituation), and after (LTM) conditioning. There was a marginally significant interaction between time and contingency (n=10, 8, repeated measures ANOVA, F1,16 = 4.30, P=0.055), and a simple effects analysis showed significant potentiation of the LFP response in the CTL II, but not the Pairings First condition (F1,16 = 18.0, P = 0.001 and F1,16 = 1.022, P = 0.33), further indicating that conditioning differentially effects synaptic processing depending on contingency. Error bars indicate s.e.m.
