Statistics
| Dataset | Data structure | Type of test | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| a | Fig. 1B. Active lever presses (saline-treated vs self-administering mice) | Normal distribution | Two-way ANOVA | <0.0001 |
| b | Fig. 1D. Active vs total lever presses in saline-treated mice | Normal distribution | Two-way ANOVA | <0.0001 |
| c | Fig. 1E. Drug reinforcers (saline-treated vs self-administering mice) | Normal distribution | Two-way ANOVA | <0.0001 |
| d | Incubation effect of amphetamine challenge in self-administering mice | Normal distribution | paired t test | 0.01 |
| e | Fig. 1F. Active lever presses (self-administering mice without and with amphetamine and nicotine) | Normal distribution | paired t test | 0.02 |
| f | Fig. 1I. Cue reinforcers (self-administering mice without and with amphetamine and nicotine) | Normal distribution | paired t test | 0.02 |
| g | Fig. 1G. Number of inactive lever presses (self-administering mice treated with amphetamine vs self-administering mice treated with amphetamine and nicotine) | Normal distribution | paired t test | 0.07 |
| h | Fig. 1H. Percentage ratio of active/total lever presses (self-administering mice treated with amphetamine vs self-administering mice treated with amphetamine and nicotine) | Normal distribution | paired t test | 0.15 |
| i | Fig. 2A. Baseline firing frequency (saline-treated vs self-administering mice) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.03 |
| Fig. 2B. Peak firing frequency power (saline-treated vs self-administering mice) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.02 | |
| Fig. 2D. Peak firing frequency distribution (saline-treated vs self-administering mice) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.02 | |
| j | Fig. 2E. Firing frequency in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | paired t test | 0.006 |
| k | Fig. 2F. Firing frequency in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | paired t test | 0.04 |
| p | Fig. 2E. Firing frequency in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | paired t test | 0.3 |
| Fig. 2E. Firing frequency in saline-treated mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | paired t test | 0.04 | |
| q | Fig. 2F. Firing frequency in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | paired t test | 0.3 |
| Fig. 2F. Firing frequency in self-administering mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | paired t test | 0.08 | |
| Fig. 2H. Peak firing frequency distribution in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | paired t test | 0.03 | |
| Fig. 2H. Peak firing frequency distribution in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | paired t test | 0.3 | |
| Fig. 2H. Peak firing frequency distribution in saline-treated mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | paired t test | 0.1 | |
| Fig. 2I. Peak firing frequency distribution in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | paired t test | 0.008 | |
| Fig. 2I. Peak firing frequency distribution in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | paired t test | 0.09 | |
| Fig. 2I. Peak firing frequency distribution in self-administering mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | paired t test | 0.04 | |
| Fig. 2J. Peak firing frequency distribution (saline-treated vs self-administering mice) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.09 | |
| r | Fig. 3C. Discrete bursting (saline-treated vs self-administering mice) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.03 |
| Fig. 3D. Intra-burst frequency (saline-treated vs self-administering mice) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.7 | |
| s | Fig. 3D. Burst length in saline-treated mice (saline-treated vs self-administering mice) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.03 |
| t | Fig. 3D. Time bursting (saline-treated vs self-administering mice) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.009 |
| Fig. 3E. Discrete pausing (saline-treated vs self-administering mice) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.5 | |
| Fig. 3F. Intra-pause frequency (saline-treated vs self-administering mice) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.2 | |
| Fig. 3F. Pause string length (saline-treated vs self-administering mice) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.8 | |
| Fig. 3F. Time pausing (saline-treated vs self-administering mice) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.4 | |
| Fig. 3G. Rate of burst and pause pattern occurrence (saline-treated vs self-administering mice) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.2 | |
| Fig. 3H. Rate of pause and burst pattern occurrence (saline-treated vs self-administering mice) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.02 | |
| Fig. 3I. Rate of burst-pause-burst pattern occurrence (saline-treated vs self-administering mice) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.03 | |
| u | Fig. 4A. Discrete bursting in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.02 |
| Fig. 4A. Discrete bursting in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.5 | |
| Fig. 4A. Discrete bursting in saline-treated mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.2 | |
| Fig. 4B. Intra-burst frequency in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.2 | |
| Fig. 4B. Intra-burst frequency in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.1 | |
| Fig. 4B. Intra-burst frequency in saline-treated mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.3 | |
| Fig. 4B. Burst length in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.1 | |
| Fig. 4B. Burst length in saline-treated mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.2 | |
| Fig. 4B. Burst length in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.09 | |
| Fig. 4B. Time spent bursting in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.4 | |
| Fig. 4B. Time spent bursting in saline-treated mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.7 | |
| Fig. 4B. Time spent bursting in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.5 | |
| Fig. 4C. Discrete pausing in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.2 | |
| Fig. 4C. Discrete pausing in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.3 | |
| Fig. 4C. Discrete pausing in saline-treated mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.1 | |
| Fig. 4D. Intra-pause frequency in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.4 | |
| Fig. 4D. Intra-pause frequency in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.6 | |
| Fig. 4D. Intra-pause frequency in saline-treated mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.2 | |
| Fig. 4D. Pause string length in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.06 | |
| Fig. 4D. Pause string length in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.2 | |
| Fig. 4D. Pause string length in saline-treated mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.1 | |
| Fig. 4D. Time spent pausing in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.2 | |
| Fig. 4D. Time spent pausing in saline-treated mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.2 | |
| Fig. 4D. Time spent pausing in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.4 | |
| Fig. 4E. Discrete bursting in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.6 | |
| Fig. 4E. Discrete bursting in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.6 | |
| Fig. 4E. Discrete bursting in self-administering mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.7 | |
| Fig. 4F. Intra-burst frequency in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.1 | |
| Fig. 4F. Intra-burst frequency in self-administering mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.07 | |
| Fig. 4F. Intra-burst frequency in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.1 | |
| Fig. 4F. Burst length in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.1 | |
| Fig. 4F. Burst length in self-administering mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0. 08 | |
| Fig. 4F. Burst length in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.007 | |
| Fig. 4F. Time spent bursting in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.9 | |
| Fig. 4F. Time spent bursting in self-administering mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.8 | |
| Fig. 4F. Time spent bursting in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.1 | |
| v | Fig. 4G. Discrete pausing in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.04 |
| Fig. 4G. Discrete pausing in self-administering mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.09 | |
| Fig. 4G. Discrete pausing in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.5 | |
| w | Fig. 4H. Intra-pause frequency in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.03 |
| Fig. 4H. Intra-pause frequency in self-administering mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.4 | |
| Fig. 4H. Intra-pause frequency in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.1 | |
| Fig. 4H. Pause string length in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.1 | |
| Fig. 4H. Pause string length in self-administering mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.1 | |
| Fig. 4H. Pause string length in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.5 | |
| x | Fig. 4H. Time spent pausing in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.04 |
| Fig. 4H. Time spent pausing in self-administering mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.08 | |
| Fig. 4H. Time spent pausing in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.2 | |
| Fig. 5A. Chl frequency (saline-treated vs self-administering mice) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.03 | |
| y | Fig. 5A. Chl frequency in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs nicotine | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.03 |
| z | Fig. 5A. Chl frequency in self-administering mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.04 |
| Fig. 5C. Peak frequency in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.03 | |
| Fig. 5D. Peak frequency in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.04 | |
| Fig. 5E. Peak frequency in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.02 | |
| aa | Fig. 5F. Discrete bursting in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.02 |
| Fig. 5G. Intra-burst frequency in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.5 | |
| Fig. 5G. Burst length in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.2 | |
| ab | Fig. 5G. Time bursting in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.01 |
| ac | Fig. 5H. Discrete pausing in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.04 |
| Fig. 5I. Intra-pause frequency in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.08 | |
| Fig. 5I. Pause length in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.7 | |
| Fig. 5I. Time pausing in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.1 | |
| ad | Fig. 5J. Discrete bursting in self-administering mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.0008 |
| Fig. 5K. Intra-burst frequency in self-administering mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.4 | |
| Fig. 5K. Burst length in self-administering mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.5 | |
| ae | Fig. 5K. Time bursting in self-administering mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.01 |
| af | Fig. 5L. Discrete pausing in self-administering mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.02 |
| ag | Fig. 5M. Intra-pause frequency in self-administering mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.02 |
| ah | Fig. 5M. Pause length in self-administering mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.02 |
| Fig. 5M. Time pausing in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.1 | |
| ai | Fig. 6A. mEPSC frequency (saline-treated mice vs self-administering mice) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.04 |
| aj | Fig. 6A. mEPSC frequency (saline-treated mice vs nonresponding mice) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.003 |
| ak | Fig. 6A. mEPSC frequency (self-administering mice vs nonresponding mice) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.0003 |
| Fig. 6B. mEPSC frequency (saline-treated mice vs self-administering mice) | Normal distribution | Bonferroni t test | 0.00003 | |
| Fig. 6B. mEPSC frequency (saline-treated mice vs nonresponding mice) | Normal distribution | Bonferroni t test | 0.002 | |
| Fig. 6C. Peak frequency of mEPSCs (saline-treated mice vs self-administering mice) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.009 | |
| Fig. 6C. Peak frequency of mEPSCs (saline-treated mice vs nonresponding mice) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.006 | |
| Fig. 6C. Peak frequency of mEPSCs (self-administering mice vs nonresponding mice) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.0008 | |
| al | Fig. 6D. mEPSC frequency in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.04 |
| an | Fig. 6D. mEPSC frequency in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.01 |
| am | Fig. 6D. mEPSC frequency in saline-treated mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.04 |
| Fig. 6E. mEPSC frequency in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Bonferroni t test | 0.04 | |
| Fig. 6E. mEPSC frequency in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Bonferroni t test | 0.01 | |
| Fig. 6E. mEPSC frequency in saline-treated mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Bonferroni t test | 0.09 | |
| Fig. 6F. Peak frequency of mEPSCs in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.7 | |
| Fig. 6F. Peak frequency of mEPSCs in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.3 | |
| Fig. 6F. Peak frequency of mEPSCs in saline-treated mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.2 | |
| ao | Fig. 6G. mEPSC frequency in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.004 |
| ap | Fig. 6G. mEPSC frequency in self-administering mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.006 |
| Fig. 6H. mEPSC frequency in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Bonferroni t test | 0.04 | |
| Fig. 6H. mEPSC frequency in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Bonferroni t test | 0.008 | |
| Fig. 6H. mEPSC frequency in self-administering mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Bonferroni t test | 0.03 | |
| Fig. 6I. Peak frequency of mEPSCs in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.1 | |
| Fig. 6I. Peak frequency of mEPSCs in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.09 | |
| Fig. 6I. Peak frequency of mEPSCs in self-administering mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.04 | |
| Fig. 6J. Peak frequency of mEPSCs (saline-treated mice vs self-administering mice with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.3 | |
| aq | Fig. 6K. mEPSC frequency in nonresponding mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.003 |
| ar | Fig. 6K. mEPSC frequency in nonresponding mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.02 |
| Fig. 6L. mEPSC frequency in nonresponding mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Bonferroni t test | 0.003 | |
| Fig. 6L. mEPSC frequency in nonresponding mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Bonferroni t test | 0.0002 | |
| Fig. 6L. mEPSC frequency in nonresponding mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Bonferroni t test | 0.03 | |
| Fig. 6M. Peak frequency of mEPSCs in nonresponding mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.02 | |
| Fig. 6M. Peak frequency of mEPSCs in nonresponding mice (vehicle vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.02 | |
| Fig. 6M. Peak frequency of mEPSCs in nonresponding mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.2 | |
| as | Fig. 7A. mEPSC frequency in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.04 |
| Fig. 7B. mEPSC frequency in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Bonferroni t test | 0.04 | |
| Fig. 7C. Peak frequency of mEPSCs in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.7 | |
| at | Fig. 7D. mEPSC frequency in self-administering mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.03 |
| Fig. 7E. mEPSC frequency in self-administering mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Bonferroni t test | 0.04 | |
| Fig. 7F. Peak frequency of mEPSCs in self-administering mice (vehicle vs amphetamine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.1 | |
| Fig. 7G. mEPSC frequency in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.04 | |
| au | Fig. 7G. mEPSC frequency (saline-treated mice vs self-administering mice) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.002 |
| av | Fig. 7G. mEPSC frequency in self-administering mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.02 |
| Fig. 7H. mEPSC frequency (saline-treated mice vs self-administering mice with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.2 | |
| aw | Fig. 7I. mEPSC frequency in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs nicotine with DHβE) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.04 |
| Fig. 7J. mEPSC frequency in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs nicotine with DHβE) | Normal distribution | Bonferroni t test | 0.03 | |
| ax | Fig. 7K. mEPSC frequency in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs nicotine with MLA) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.04 |
| Fig. 7L. mEPSC frequency in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs nicotine with MLA) | Normal distribution | Bonferroni t test | 0.009 | |
| ay | Fig. 8B. Ambulations of saline-treated mice vs amphetamine-treated mice | Normal distribution | rm ANOVA | 0.0001 |
| az | Fig. 8C. Ambulations of saline-treated mice vs amphetamine-treated mice | Normal distribution | 2-way rm-ANOVA | 0.0001 |
| ba | Fig. 8D. Ambulations of saline-treated mice (low-dose vs high-dose nicotine) | Normal distribution | 2-way rm-ANOVA | 0.9 |
| bb | Fig. 8E. Ambulations of amphetamine-treated mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with low-dose nicotine) | Normal distribution | 2-way rm-ANOVA | 1 |
| bc | Fig. 8E. Ambulations of amphetamine-treated mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with high-dose nicotine) | Normal distribution | 2-way rm-ANOVA | 0.01 |
| bd | Fig. 8F. Ambulations of saline-treated mice (amphetamine vs amphetamine with high-dose nicotine) | Normal distribution | 2-way rm-ANOVA | 0.9 |
| be | Fig. 8G. Ambulations of saline-treated mice challenged with nicotine vs amphetamine-treated mice challenged with nicotine | Normal distribution | 2-way rm-ANOVA | 0.9 |
| bf | Fig. 8H. eEPSC amplitude in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.02 |
| bg | Fig. 8H. PPR in saline-treated mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.009 |
| bh | Fig. 8I. eEPSC amplitude in amphetamine-treated mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.0008 |
| bi | Fig. 8I. PPR in amphetamine-treated mice (vehicle vs nicotine) | Normal distribution | Paired t test | 0.013 |
| bj | Fig. 8H,I. eEPSC amplitude (saline-treated mice vs amphetamine-treated mice) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.02 |
| bk | Fig. 8H,I. eEPSC amplitude (saline-treated mice with nicotine vs amphetamine-treated mice with nicotine) | Normal distribution | Student’s t test | 0.2 |