What exactly has gone selleck products wrong with the state generation process due to the cholinergic manipulations? Here, the comprehensive set of metaphoric hoops through which the rats were made to jump becomes key to

narrowing down the options, highlighting the utility of using the incisive behavioral manipulations that animal learning theorists have spent decades developing. To understand what went wrong, it is useful to first review what aspects of learning were not disrupted by cholinergic manipulations: in addition to intact goal-directed learning, the comprehensive battery of tests shows that new state formation was not completely abolished. This is evident in the test following the third challenge, extinction training, in which exposure to one of the outcomes led to reinstatement of responding. Reinstatement indicates that extinction training did not simply overwrite and erase previous associations between actions and outcomes (Gershman et al., 2010), but rather reward omission caused rats in both groups to create a new state (Figure 1, state 4). However, reinstatement in cholinergically impaired rats was far from normal: these rats reinstated both actions ( Figure 1, right). One possible

explanation for this pattern of results (option A in Figure 1, bottom) is that upon reinstatement the rats erroneously retrieved Cisplatin Dipeptidyl peptidase two states—the most recent, postreversal state (state 3 in Figure 1), in which the right lever was mapped to sucrose and the left to pellets, and the state from initial training (state 1 in Figure 1), in which the lever to reward mapping was the reverse. This may, in fact, sound familiar to world travelers: a foolproof policy for safe street-crossing in some countries is to look left-right-left-right repeatedly, that is, to act upon both pre-travel and in-travel states. Such a retrieval deficit could also explain the lack of specificity of the postreversal devaluation test, in which cholinergically impaired

rats devalued both actions rather than only the one associated with the satiated outcome ( Figure 1, third column). Finally, it can also explain the intermediate level of responding in the contingency degradation test ( Figure 1, second column) by assuming that the new state (state 2, in which not pressing was associated with the outcome) was retrieved together with the old state (state 1). The deficit in reinstatement was observed even when cholinergic function was disrupted only during learning, yet this does not rule out a retrieval deficit, as retrieval of the appropriate states is also necessary during learning. That is, in order to learn, on every trial, the rat must retrieve and update associations within the current state.