Extended Data Fig. 4: Decision-making behavior 24 hours after muscimol.

(Associated with Fig. 2 of the main text) a, Proportion of choices to the inactivated field (toIF) is plotted as a function of Glass pattern coherence. Black circles show premuscimol performance data and green circles show 24-hour recovery performance data. The black and green lines show the two-parameter logistic fits to the performance data. n = 23 injections. b, Same as in a for the pre-saline (black circles and lines) and the 24-hour recovery from saline (green circles and lines). n = 6 injections. c, α parameters from the logistic fits for the recovery data (rec-muscimol) plotted against α parameters from the fits for the premuscimol data. On average, the α parameter shifted leftward during the recovery period compared to the premuscimol control (w(22) = 230, p = 0.005). Note that this was opposite to the direction of the shift that occurred postmuscimol as seen in the main Fig. 2a, as if the monkeys over-compensated for the effect of muscimol during recovery. d, β parameters from the logistic fits for the recovery data plotted against the β parameters from the fits from the premuscimol data. On average, there were no significant differences in the β parameter (t(22) = -1.31, p = 0.20, 95% CI = [-0.02, 6.0 ×10⁻³]). (e-f) Same as in c and d for the saline experiments. g, Reaction time (RT) plotted against coherence for the premuscimol data (black circles) and recovery data (green circles) from the RT version of the decision task (n = 9 injections). The lines show linear fits to the RT data. The RT was shorter for the recovery data compared to the premuscimol data for all coherences. Similar to the results of the α parameter comparisons, the RT finding suggests a compensatory response to the muscimol injections 24 hours earlier. h, Same as in g for the saline experiments. i, The slope parameter from the linear fits to the RT data for the recovery data plotted against the premuscimol data. Cyan circles show the parameter of the linear fits of the RT data for toIF decisions (positive coherences) and magenta circles show the RT data for awayIF decisions (negative coherences). There were no significant differences on average (RT slope awayIF, t(8) = 1.37, p = 0.21, 95% CI = [-0.87, 2.59]; RT slope toIF, t(8) = -0.87, p = 0.41, 95% CI = [-3.10, 1.61]). j, same as in i for the intercept parameter. There were significant changes in the intercept on average for the toIF side (RT intercept, t(8) = 3.61, p = 0.007, 95% CI = [32.55, 240.50]) but not the awayIF side (RT intercept, t(8) =2.63, p = 0.03 n.s. Bonferroni correction, 95% CI = [-4.89, 216.53]). (k-l) Same as in i and j for the saline experiments. There were no significant differences in slope or intercept for these experiments (RT slope awayIF, t(3) = -0.02, p = 0.98, 95% CI = [-6.26, 6.19]; RT slope toIF, t(3) = 0.62, p = 0.58, 95% CI = [-0.88, 1.19]; RT intercept awayIF, t(3) = 0.37, p = 0.74, 95% CI = [-71.20, 85.05]; RT intercept toIF, w(3) = 9, p = 0.25). Note that four saline experiments were performed in the RT task and the other two were performed using the delayed version of the task so only four observations appear in this plot. Note that the darker shaded symbols show the median values and the 95% confidence intervals are from the means.