Table 1:

Detailed statistical table

	Figure	Comparison	Type of test	Statistic	95% CI
a	NA	Sucrose pellets	Four-way LMM ANOVA	Sex × intake × treatment × sessions: F_(8,364) = 0.85	p = 0.56
b	NA	Alcohol (g/kg), weeks 1–3	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Sex: F_(1,59) = 48.42	p < 0.0001
c	NA	Alcohol (%pref), weeks 1–3	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Sex: F_(1,58) = 17.61	p < 0.0001
d	1b,c	Week 3 average alcohol intake and preference	Unpaired t tests	Intake: t₍₆₀₎ = 4.66 Preference: t₍₆₀₎ = 2.74	p < 0.0001 p = 0.008
	1b	Average alcohol (g/kg)	Frequency distribution, median split	Cutoff males: 4.3 g/kg females: 6.9 g/kg	NA
	1c	Average alcohol (%)	Frequency distribution, median split	Cutoff males: 16%, females: 23%	NA
e	NA	Body weight, weeks 1–3	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Sex: F_(1,93) = 736.83	p < 2e⁻¹⁶
	NA	Body weight, weeks 1–10	Four-way LMM ANOVA	Sex × intake × treatment × sessions: F_(60,2790) = 1.57	p = 0.004
	NA	Males: body weight, weeks 1–10	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Intake × treatment × sessions: F_(60,1410) = 1.75	p = 0.0004
	NA	Water intake: Ket SA vs Sal SA	Tukey’s post hoc	Sessions 17–31: t < −2	Sessions 17-31: p < 0.05
g	2a,b	FR1 infusions, sessions 1–6	Four-way LMM ANOVA	Sex: F_(1,93) = 9.02	p = 0.0034
	2a,b	FR1 Infusions, sessions 10–11	Four-way LMM ANOVA	Sex × intake: F_(2,93) = 3.45	p = 0.036
	2a,b	High-Alc: F vs M	Tukey’s post hoc	SA sessions 10–11: t₍₉₃₎ = 3.05	p = 0.003
	2a,b	Males: FR1 Infusions, sessions 1–6	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Intake × treatment × sessions: F_(10,230) = 2.3	p = 0.014
	2a	Males_Ket SA: high vs low and high vs water	Tukey’s post hoc	SA session 4: t₍₄₆₎ = −2.8 SA session 5: t₍₄₆₎ = −3.13	Session 4: p = 0.02 Session 5: p =0.008
		Males: FR1 infusions, sessions 10–11	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Intake × treatment: F_(2,46) = 3.83	p = 0.029
		Ket SA: high-Alc vs water	Tukey’s post hoc	t₍₄₆₎ = −2.5	p = 0.04
		Ket SA: high-Alc vs low_Alc	Tukey’s post hoc	t₍₄₆₎ = −3.005	p = 0.012
	2a,b	Females: FR1 Infusions, sessions 1–6	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Treatment × sessions: F_(5,235) = 38.03	p < 0.0001
		Females: FR1 Infusions, sessions 10–11	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Treatment × sessions: F_(1,47) = 6.11	p = 0.017
h	2c,d	Active responses, sessions 1–6	Four-way LMM ANOVA	Sex × intake × treatment × sessions: F_(10,459) = 2.13	p = 0.021
	2c	Ket SA_water: F vs M	Tukey’s post hoc	SA session 2: t₍₉₃₎ = 2.33	p = 0.022
	2c	Ket SA_low-Alc: F vs M	Tukey’s post hoc	SA sessions 5–6: t₍₉₃₎ = 2.18, 2.62	p = 0.032, 0.01
	2c	Ket SA_high-Alc: F vs M	Tukey’s post hoc	SA sessions 3–6: t₍₉₃₎ = 3.51, 3.53, 4.54, 4.59	p = 0.0007, 0.0007, 0.0001, 0.0001
	2c,d	Active responses, sessions 10–11	Four-way LMM ANOVA	Sex: F_(1,93) = 9.93	p = 0.002
	2c,d	Inactive responses, sessions 1–6	Four-way LMM ANOVA	Sex: F_(1,94) = 4.1	p = 0.04
		Inactive responses, sessions 10–11	Four-way LMM ANOVA	Sex × intake × treatment × sessions: F_(2,90) = 0.35	p = 0.71
	2c,d	Males: active responses, sessions 1–6	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Intake × treatment × sessions: F_(10,228) = 3.13	p = 0.0009
	2c	Males_Ket SA: high vs water	Tukey’s post hoc	SA sessions 5–6: t₍₄₆₎ = −3.59, −2.95	p = 0.002, 0.01
	2c,d	Males: active response, sessions 10–11	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Intake × treatment: F_(2,46) = 3.65	p = 0.034
	2c	Males_Ket SA: high vs water	Tukey’s post hoc	Main effect of intake: t₍₄₆₎ = −3.17	p = 008
	2c,d	Females: active response, sessions 1–6	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Treatment × sessions: F_(5,231) = 26.44	p < 0.0001
	2c,d	Females: active response, sessions 10–11	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Intake × treatment × sessions: F_(2,46) = 4.12	p = 0.02
	2c	Ket SA: high-Alc vs water	Tukey’s post hoc	SA session 10: t₍₄₆₎ = 2.77	p = 022
i	3a,b	PR break point	Four-way LMM ANOVA	Sex × intake × treatment × sessions: F_(4,186) = 3.6	p = 0.0074
	3a	Ket SA_water: F vs M	Tukey’s post hoc	SA session 7: t₍₉₃₎ = 2.21	p = 0.029
	3a	Ket SA_low-Alc: F vs M	Tukey’s post hoc	SA session 9: t₍₉₃₎ = 3.29	p = 0.0014
	3a	Ket SA_high-Alc: F vs M	Tukey’s post hoc	SA sessions 8–9: t₍₉₃₎ = 5.27, 3.32	p = 0.0001, 0.0013
	3a,b	Males: break point	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Treatment × sessions: F_(2,92) = 3.21	p = 0.045
	3a,b	M_Ket vs Sal	Tukey’s post hoc	SA sessions 7–8: t₍₄₆₎ = 4.08, 2.94	p = 0.0002, 0.0052
	3a,b	Females: break point	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Intake × treatment × sessions: F_(4,94) = 3.67	p = 0.008
	3a,b	F_Water: Ket vs Sal SA	Tukey’s post hoc	SA session 7: t₍₄₇₎ = 2.25	p = 0.029
	3a,b	F_Low-Alc: Ket vs Sal SA	Tukey’s post hoc	SA session 9: t₍₄₇₎ = 2.52	p = 0.015
	3a,b	F_High-Alc: Ket vs Sal SA	Tukey’s post hoc	SA session 8: t₍₄₇₎ = 3.67	p = 0.0006
	3a	F_Ket SA: high vs water and high vs low	Tukey’s post hoc	SA session 8: t₍₄₇₎ = 3.94, 3.78	p = 0.0008, 0.012
j	3c,d	PR active responses	Four-way LMM ANOVA	Sex × intake × treatment × sessions: F_(4,185) = 3.25	p = 0.013
	3c	Ket SA_water: F vs M	Tukey’s post hoc	SA session 7: t₍₉₃₎ = 1.99	p = 0.049
	3c	Ket SA_low-Alc: F vs M	Tukey’s post hoc	SA session 9: t₍₉₃₎ = 3.27	p = 0.0015
	3c	Ket SA_high-Alc: F vs M	Tukey’s post hoc	SA sessions 8–9: t₍₉₃₎ = 5.2, 3.43	p = 0.0001, 0.0009
	3c,d	Males: PR active responses	Three-way LMM ANOVA	main effect of treatment: F_(1,46) = 10.43	p = 0.0023
	3c,d	Females: active responses	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Intake × treatment × sessions: F_(4,94) = 3.25	p = 0.015
	3c,d	F_low-Alc: Ket vs Sal SA	Tukey’s post hoc	SA session 9: t₍₄₇₎ = 2.48	p = 0.017
	3c,d	F_high-Alc: Ket vs Sal SA	Tukey’s post hoc	SA session 8: t₍₄₇₎ = 3.65, 2.05	p = 0.0007, 0.0047
	3c	F_Ket SA: high vs water and high vs low	Tukey’s post hoc	SA session 8: t₍₄₇₎ = 3.88, 3.76	p = 0.0009, 0.0014
k	3e,f	PR infusions	Four-way LMM ANOVA	Sex × intake × treatment × sessions: F_(4,186) = 2.95	p = 0.022
	3e	Ket SA_water: F vs M	Tukey’s post hoc	SA session 7: t₍₉₃₎ = 2.26	p = 0.026
	3e	Ket SA_low-Alc: F vs M	Tukey’s post hoc	SA session 9: t₍₉₃₎ = 2.69	p = 0.0084
	3e	Ket SA_high-Alc: F vs M	Tukey’s post hoc	SA sessions 8–9: t₍₉₃₎ = 4.04, 3.54	p = 0.0001, 0.0006
	3e,f	Males: infusions	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Treatment × sessions: F_(2,92) = 4.32	p = 0.016
	3e,f	M_Ket vs Sal	Tukey’s post hoc	SA sessions 7–9: t₍₄₆₎ = 5.48, 4.17, 2.09	p = 0.0001, 0.0001, 0.04
	3e,f	Females: infusions	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Intake × treatment × sessions: F_(4,94) = 4.48	p = 0.002

	3e,f	F_water: Ket vs Sal SA	Tukey’s post hoc	SA sessions 7, 9: t₍₄₇₎ = 3.82, 2.03	p = 0.0004, 0.049
	3e,f	F_low-Alc: Ket vs Sal SA	Tukey’s post hoc	SA session 9: t₍₄₇₎ = 2.71	p = 0.005
	3e,f	F_high-Alc: Ket vs Sal SA	Tukey’s post hoc	SA session 8: t₍₄₇₎ = 2.96	p = 0.009
	3e	F_Ket SA: high vs water and high vs low	Tukey’s post hoc	SA session 8: t₍₄₇₎ = 2.9, 3.19	p = 0.02, 0.007
l	4a,b	Incubation of craving, active responses	Four-way LMM ANOVA	Sex: F_(1,85) = 9.81	p = 0.0024
	4a,b	Males: incubation of craving, active responses	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Treatment × sessions: F_(1,85) = 3.79	p = 0.026
	4a,b	Males: incubation of craving, active responses	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Intake × treatment: F_(2,44) = 5.44	p = 0.008
	4a	M_water, Ket SA: day 1 vs 21	Tukey’s post hoc	t₍₉₁₎ = 2.52	p = 0.03
	4a	M_low-Alc, Ket SA: day 1 vs 7, 1 vs 21	Tukey’s post hoc	t₍₉₁₎ = 3.44, 4.05	p = 0.0025, 0.0003
	4a	M_high-Alc, Ket SA, day 1 vs 7	Tukey’s post hoc	t₍₉₁₎ = 2.72	p = 0.02
	4a,b	Females: incubation of craving, active responses	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Intake × treatment: F_(2,41) = 3.93	p = 0.027
	4b	F_water, Sal SA: day 1 vs 7, 1 vs 21	Tukey’s post hoc	t₍₈₂₎ = 2.8, 2.8	p = 0.01, 0.01
	4a	F_water, Ket SA: day 1 vs 21	Tukey’s post hoc	t₍₈₂₎ = 2.8	p = 0.01
	4a	F_high-Alc, Ket SA, day 1 vs 7	Tukey’s post hoc	t₍₈₂₎ = 2.52	p = 0.04
m	5a,b	Alcohol (g/kg), weeks 1–10	Four-way LMM ANOVA	Sex: F_(1,53) = 83.87	p < 0.0001
	5a,b	Males: g/kg weeks 1–10	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Intake × treatment × sessions: F_(30,785) = 2.53	p < 0.0001
	5a	High-Alc: Ket SA vs Sal SA	Tukey’s post hoc	Sessions 19, 22: t₍₂₇₎ < −2.68, −3.08	p = 0.019, 0.009
	5a,b	Females: g/kg weeks 1–10	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Intake × sessions: F_(30,760) = 2.5; treatment × sessions: F_(30,760) = 1.6	p < 0.0001; p = 0.022
	5b	Low-Alc: Ket SA vs Sal SA	Tukey’s post hoc	Sessions 19–20, 23–26: t₍₂₇₎ > 2.26	p < 0.05
n	6a,b	Alcohol (%pref), weeks 1–10	Four-way LMM ANOVA	Sex: F_(1,53) = 6.19	p = 0.016
	6a,b	Males: %pref weeks 1–10	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Intake × treatment × sessions: F_(30,784) = 2.28	p = 0.0001
	6a	High-Alc: Ket SA vs Sal SA	Tukey’s post hoc	Sessions 19–23, 25–31: t₍₂₇₎ < −2.07	p < 0.05
	6a,b	Females: %pref weeks 1–10	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Intake × treatment × sessions: F_(30,759) = 1.67	p = 0.015
	6b	Low-Alc: Ket SA vs Sal SA	Tukey’s post hoc	Sessions 19–20, 22–26: t₍₂₆₎ > 2.11	p < 0.05
o	7c	Total spines	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Sex × intake: F_(2,26) = 4.77	p = 0.017
	7c	High-Alc: M vs F	Tukey’s post hoc	t₍₂₆₎ = −4.17	p = 0.0003
	7c	Males: total spines	Two-way LMM ANOVA	Intake: F_(2,13) = 3.84	p = 0.04
		High-Alc vs water	Tukey’s post hoc	t₍₁₅₎ = 2.87	p = 0.02
	7c	Females: total spines	Two-way LMM ANOVA	Intake: F_(2,13) = 16.23	p = 0.00029
p	7d	Thin spines	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Sex: F_(1,26) = 9.63	p = 0.005
	7d	Males: thin spines	Two-way LMM ANOVA	Treatment: F_(2,13) = 30.63	p < 0.0001
	7d	Females: thin spines	Two-way LMM ANOVA	Intake × treatment: F_(2,13) = 3.92	p = 0.047
	7d	Sal SA: high-Alc vs water	Tukey’s post hoc	t₍₁₃₎ = 3.67	p = 0.008
	7d	Ket SA: low-Alc vs water	Tukey’s post hoc	t₍₁₅₎ = 5.25	p = 0.0004
	7d	Ket SA: high-Alc vs water	Tukey’s post hoc	t₍₁₅₎ = 4.72	p = 0.001
	7d	Water: Ket SA vs Sal SA	Tukey’s post hoc	t₍₁₅₎ = −3.47	p = 0.004
q	7e	Mushroom spines	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Sex × intake × treatment: F_(2,26) = 8.82	p = 0.001
	7e	Males vs females: high-Alc, Ket SA	Tukey’s post hoc	t₍₂₆₎ = −6.22	p < 0.0001
	7e	Males vs Females: low-Alc, Ket SA	Tukey’s post hoc	t₍₂₆₎ = 2.6	p = 0.01
	7e	Males: mushroom spines	Two-way LMM ANOVA	Intake × treatment: F_(2,13) = 12.08	p = 0.001
	7e	Water: Ket SA vs Sal SA	Tukey’s post hoc	t₍₁₃₎ = 5.21	p = 0.0005
	7e	Low-Alc: Ket SA vs Sal SA	Tukey’s post hoc	t₍₁₃₎ = 7.16	p < 0.0001
	7e	High-Alc: Ket SA vs Sal SA	Tukey’s post hoc	t₍₁₃₎ = 0.21	p = 0.83
	7e	Females: mushroom spines	Two-way LMM ANOVA	Treatment: F_(1,13) = 72.6	p < 0.0001
r	7f	Stubby spines	Three-way LMM ANOVA	Sex × intake × treatment: F_(2,26) = 0.02	p = 0.97
s	8a	Total × alcohol (%pref)	Linear regression	Males: R ² = 0.54 Females: R ² = 0.49	p = 0.007 p = 0.01
	8b	Thin × alcohol (%pref)	Linear regression	Males: R ² = 0.35 Females: R ² = 0.35	p = 0.04 p = 0.04
	8c	Mushroom × alcohol (%pref)	Linear regression	Males: R ² = 0.06 Females: R ² = 0.1	p = 0.44 p = 0.31
t	8d	Total × Cum. infusions	Linear regression	Males: R ² = 0.17 Females: R ² = 0.09	p = 0.08 p = 0.21
	8e	Thin × Cum. infusions	Linear regression	Males: R ² = 0.3 Females: R ² = 0.007	p = 0.01 p = 0.73
	8f	Mushroom × Cum. infusions	Linear regression	Males: R ² = 0.18 Females: R ² = 0.56	p = 0.07 p = 0.003

Summary of analyses performed on behavioral, morphologic, and correlational data. Each comparison is indicated by lettering in the far-left column (column 1). Figure column represents each corresponding to that figure or panel for that comparison. Comparison column represents the dependent variable being measured as well as individual comparisons examined with post hoc tests. Type of test indicates the analysis performed on that particular dataset. Statistic column indicates sample size, df, and F statistic for each comparison. Statistical interactions and/or main effects observed are indicated within this column. Confidence interval (CI) set at 95% lists the corresponding p values for each statistic, and any comparison p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. NA, Not applicable; Cum., cumulative; LMM ANOVA, linear mixed-models ANOVA. %pref, percentage of preference; F, female; M, male.