Fig. 4. The ability of intact (sham control) lobsters (A), aesthetasc-ablated lobsters (B) and non-aesthetasc-ablated lobsters (C) to learn an aversive associative task and to discriminate between an aversively conditioned odor (CS+=crab odor, CO) and three other complex odor mixtures (inverse crab odor, ICO; shrimp odor, SO; mullet odor, MO) following aversive conditioning with generalization testing (see Table 2 for protocol). Values are means + S.E.M. *Search responses significantly different in unconditioned and conditioned lobsters (planned-comparisons one-way ANOVA, P<0.05). 
Search responses significantly larger than those elicited by crab odor in conditioned lobsters (planned-comparisons one-way ANOVA, P<0.05). () Search responses close to being significantly different from those elicited by crab odor in conditioned lobsters (planned-comparisons one-way ANOVA, 0.05<P<0.10). For the planned comparisons, critical values for a 5 % experiment-wise error rate were determined by the sequential Bonferroni test using the Dunn–
idák method (Sokal and Rohlf, 1998). For a description of search responses and calculation of standardized search responses relative to the responses to oyster extract in the preconditioning phase, see Materials and methods.
