Figure 3. Drinking microstructure. A, Air-exposed mice are sensitive to the devaluing effects of 60 μm quinine and consumed significantly less of that solution compared with baseline. B, Following CIE exposure, mice consumed significantly more ethanol, ethanol+quinine, and ethanol+sucrose solutions. C, Compared with air-exposed mice, CIE mice consumed significantly greater amounts of the ethanol, ethanol+quinine, and ethanol+sucrose solutions. D, In air-exposed mice, drinking bout size changed depending on the drinking solution, posttests revealed that this was driven by larger bouts during ethanol+sucrose drinking. E, In CIE-exposed mice, drinking bout size changed depending on the drinking solution, posttests revealed that this was driven by larger bouts during ethanol+sucrose drinking. F, Bout sizes were significantly larger in CIE animals, posttests revealed that this was driven by increased bout sizes in ethanol+quinine and ethanol+sucrose drinking. G, The number of bouts during a drinking session was not significantly different in any of the drinking solutions for air-exposed mice. H, CIE mice initiated significantly more drinking bouts following CIE exposure when drinking any of the ethanol solutions. I, Compared with air-exposed mice, CIE mice initiated significantly more drinking bouts following CIE exposure when drinking ethanol+quinine or ethanol+sucrose. J, Lick rates during drinking sessions were not significantly different in any of the drinking solutions for air-exposed mice. K, Lick rates were significantly different in CIE-exposed mice with slower rates during ethanol+quinine. L, When compared with air-exposed mice, lick rates were not significantly different during any of the drinking solutions; * indicates significant main effects or interactions *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, # used for significant post hoc tests #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01, ###p < 0.001, ####p < 0.0001.