Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Oct 5.
Published in final edited form as: Behav Brain Res. 2008 Apr 8;191(2):246–255. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2008.03.035

Figure 2. Performance of 13 mo Tg PDAPP, Tg PDAPP(D664A) and non-Tg littermates in the MWM.

Figure 2

a. Spatial trainingLeft panel, mean latencies to reach a hidden platform were significantly different in Tg PDAPP mice with respect to non-Tg littermates [(P<0.05 as a result of Bonferroni’s post-hoc test applied to a significant effect of genotype (F(2, 25)=4.56; *P<0.02, repeated measures two-way ANOVA)]. Performance of 13 mo Tg PDAPP(D664A) was indistinguishable from non-Tg littermates’ (P>0.05) and from Tg PDAPP mice (P>0.05). Right panel, mean latencies for all genotypes. Session number significantly affected performance of all groups (F(4,100)=3.77, P=0.007, repeated measures two-way ANOVA). b. Probe trial. No significant difference in number of crosses over the target were observed between groups. Data are means ± SEM.