Table 1.
Effect of each drug application on the baseline fEPSP magnitude.
| Drug Applied | Number of slices | Baseline (Mean ± SEM) | Drug before CRF (Mean ± SEM) | Wilcoxon sum of signed rank (W) | P-value | Significance @ P<0.05 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sal CRF + APV | 5 | 99.1 ± 2.9 | 104.0 ± 10.1 | -1 | 1.0000 | ns |
| Coc CRF + APV | 5 | 99.6 ± 4.8 | 105.1 ± 5.4 | -1 | 1.0000 | ns |
| Sal CRF + NIM | 5 | 98.8 ± 2.1 | 87.9 ± 10.3 | 9 | 0.3125 | ns |
| Coc CRF + NIM | 5 | 100.2 ± 1.0 | 92.2 ± 7.1 | 7 | 0.4375 | ns |
| Sal CRF + NBI | 8 | 95.9 ± 1.4 | 99.7 ± 7.3 | -6 | 0.7422 | ns |
| Coc CRF + NBI | 8 | 98.6 ± 3.3 | 99.8 ± 4.4 | -4 | 0.8438 | ns |
| Sal CRF +Ast2B | 5 | 100.0 ± 1.0 | 103.3 ± 6.5 | -5 | 0.6250 | ns |
| Coc CRF + Ast2B | 5 | 100.0 ± 0.8 | 99.1 ± 5.6 | 1 | 1.0000 | ns |
| Sal CRF + SCH | 5 | 97.6 ± 3.3 | 106.3 ± 7.5 | -5 | 0.6250 | ns |
| Coc CRF + SCH | 5 | 96.5 ± 2.5 | 97.8 ± 5.8 | -1 | 1.0000 | ns |
| Sal CRF + RAC | 6 | 100.0 ± 0.9 | 107.2 ± 3.0 | -17 | 0.0938 | ns |
| Coc CRF +RAC | 7 | 100.0 ± 1.1 | 105.3 ± 4.6 | -12 | 0.3750 | ns |
| Sal HFS+SCH | 5 | 100.5 ± 2.2 | 98.0 ± 3.4 | 9 | 0.3125 | ns |
| Sal HFS+RAC | 5 | 100.5 ± 0.7 | 100.3 ± 1.0 | -5 | 0.6250 | ns |
| Coc HFS+SCH | 5 | 97.1 ± 2.8 | 103.4 ± 5.9 | -9 | 0.3125 | ns |
| Coc HFS+RAC | 8 | 100.8 ± 0.4 | 99.3 ± 0.7 | 18 | 0.2500 | ns |
Kruskal-Wallis test statistic=37.45; P=0.5408, ns=not significant
fEPSP magnitude was calculated during the time of the drug application which preceded the CRF or HFS treatment and followed the baseline measurements. It was then normalized to baseline values and averaged. The mean and standard error of mean was calculated for the averages from the number of slices indicated in the table. Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA followed by pairwise comparison using Wilcoxon revealed no significant differences between the baseline values and the drug application alone, suggesting that the drugs by themselves did not alter the baseline responses.