Fig. 2: Effect of VTA GABAA blockade on punished behavior.
a Bilateral guide cannulae were implanted into VTA of wild-type rats b Cannulae placements for animals with valid placements, according to acquisition drug group (A-Sal [n = 7], A-Bic [n = 6]). c Punishment task design. d Timeline of task sessions, with arrows indicating when subjects received intra-VTA infusions of GABAA antagonist bicuculline (Bic) and/or control saline (Sal). A-Bic vs. A-Sal groups received Bic vs. Sal (respectively) before the first 2 sessions of punishment. All groups received Bic vs. Sal (within-subjects, order counterbalanced) in subsequent punishment expression, choice, and locomotor tests. e Mean ± SEM lever suppression ratios by acquisition group across last day of training (T) and punishment acquisition sessions. Grey shaded area indicates infusion sessions. Rats that received Bic (A-Bic) exhibited a persistent deficit in punishment avoidance. f Mean ± SEM lever-press latencies by acquisition group across last day of training (T) and punishment acquisition sessions. A-Bic rats were quicker to press the punished lever relative to A-Sal rats. g Mean ± SEM lever suppression ratios during punishment expression tests per acquisition group. A-Bic rats continued to press punished R1 more than A-Sal rats; Bic infusions during expression tests had no effect on R1 responding. h Mean ± SEM lever-press latencies during punishment expression tests. A-Bic rats continued to press punished R1 more quickly than A-Sal rats; Bic infusions during expression tests had no effect on R1 responding. i Mean ± SEM suppression ratios during choice tests. Bic selectively increased R1 responding in A-Sal group. j Mean ± SEM distance traveled during locomotor tests. A-Bic rats traveled further than A-Sal animals. Bic infusions during these tests had no significant effect on this. *p < 0.05.
