We also observed no significant interaction between trial blocks and the overlapping effect, F < 1 (Fig. 4a).
There was a significant main effect for trial blocks for VE but not for |CE|, suggesting that groups became more consistent between trial blocks.
There was a significant main effect for trial blocks for both |CE| and VE, indicating that groups became more accurate and consistent as a result of practice.
For the RT (L1) analysis, we found a significant main effect of trial blocks, F 7, 77) = 31.9, MSE = 104,907, p <.001, ηp =.74, with the earlier stage being marked by slower speeds than the later stage, indicating a learning effect.
The error analysis revealed a significant learning effect of trial blocks using one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), F 7, 77) = 2.73, MSE = 33.331, p <.05, ηp =.20; the error percentages were 19.0 %, 13.3 %, 13.0 %, 11.3 %, 10.5 %, 11.1 %, 10.8 %, and 12.4 %, for the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth blocks, respectively.
There was no significant overall effect of treatment; however, there was a significant interaction between trial block and treatment (F 5,130) = 2.37, P = 0.04).
When we compared the performance of the vehicle-treated animals and the MPEP-treated animals during extinction learning (Day 4, first and second trial blocks) a significant difference was also evident [ANOVA: F 1, 26) = 11.843; P = 0.002], whereby extinction in the second trial block was poorer in MPEP-treated animals compared to controls (P < 0.05).
A significant group × trial block interaction was revealed for |CE|.
Across the 3 cohorts, there was a highly significant effect of trial block, with lower overall exploration levels (novel plus familiar) for the final block of trials, F 3, 168) = 37.6, p <.001.
The repeated measures ANOVA on percent correct revealed a highly significant effect of trial block F74,814 = 4.13, P < 0.001, indicating a gradual increase in the percentage correct over the course of the task across both conditions.
