Fig. 6. The ability of intact (sham control) lobsters (A) and aesthetasc-ablated lobsters (B) to learn a discrimination conditioning task and to discriminate between binary mixtures of AMP+taurine with the same total concentration (1 mmol l–1) but at different blend ratios. The discrimination conditioning paradigm is described in Table 3. The aversively conditioned odorant (CS+) was the 99.9:0.1 blend ratio, and the conditioned ‘safe’ odorants (CS–) were the blend ratios 99:1, 90:10 and 50:50. 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 the aversively conditioned blend ratio 99.9:0.1 (CS+) in conditioned lobsters (planned-comparisons one-way ANOVA, P<0.05). 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). Search responses of conditioned lobsters to oyster extract (OE) after the post-conditioning phase are also shown. In both intact and aesthetasc-ablated lobsters, search responses to oyster extract before and after conditioning were not significantly different (P<0.05, t-test for dependent samples). For a description of search responses and calculation of the standardized search responses relative to the responses to oyster extract in the preconditioning phase, see Materials and methods.
