Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Jun 8.
Published in final edited form as: Behav Brain Res. 2009 Jan 8;200(1):95–99. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2008.12.034

Figure 3.

Figure 3

During the training phase of the object recognition paradigm, FK506 treatment did not affect sample object exploration. (a) WT or Tg2576 treated with FK506 (or vehicle) showed no exploratory preference for identical objects placed on the left versus right side of the open field box during sample exposure. Two-tailed t-test found no significant difference between the time WT or Tg2576 mice treated with vehicle or FK506 explored the left versus right sample object during the training phase. p=0.67, 0.29, 0.33, 0.53 for WT-vehicle, WT-FK506, Tg2576-vehicle, and Tg2576-FK506 respectively. One-way ANOVA also did not detect any effect of treatment on object exploration: p=0.10, F(3,101)=2.17 for objects in the left position; p=0.13, F(3,101)=1.95 for objects in the right position. (b) The amount of time WT and Tg2576 explored identical sample objects during the training phase did not differ under conditions of vehicle versus FK506 treatment. Two-tailed t-test found no significant difference between the time WT or Tg2576 mice treated with vehicle or FK506 explored the left versus right sample object during the training phase. p=0.70, 0.41, WT and Tg2576 respectively. Two-way ANOVA found no significant effect of treatment or genotype on object exploration during the exposure phase of object recognition training p=0.58 (F=0.30), 0.23 (F=1.4), and 0.43 (F=0.63) for treatment, genotype and interaction respectively.