Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2013 Jul 18;106:10.1016/j.nlm.2013.07.006. doi: 10.1016/j.nlm.2013.07.006

Figure 4.

Figure 4

a) MWM Latencies; Cued Rats. Acquisition platform latencies were significantly higher for CCI/No-NSPT versus CCI/NSPT rats (d15–d18; p<0.001 all comparisons). Differences in latencies between CCI/NSPT and sham/NSPT rats were observed on d14–d15; p<0.006 all comparisons. VP latency times were higher for CCI versus sham rats (p<0.009 all comparisons). NSPT improved VP latencies for CCI and sham rats (p<0.027 all comparisons). CCI/NSPT rats R1 latencies were not significantly different from shams. Sham/No-NSPT rats had lower latencies on R2 than on R1 (p<0.002). CCI rats did not exhibit reduced latencies from R1 to R2. There was no NSPT effect between sham groups. b) PZ TA; Cued Rats. CCI/No-NSPT rats exhibited higher PT ZA than CCI/NSPT rats (d14–d18, p<0.011 all comparisons). CCI/NSPT rats exhibited higher PT ZA than sham/NSPT rats d15 (p=0.016), even on days when platform latencies were similar across groups. During VP trials, CCI/No-NSPT groups had higher PT ZA than Sham/No-NSPT rats (p<0.003). CCI/NSPT rats had lower PZ TA than CCI/No-NSPT rats on R2 (p=0.022). No changes in PZ TA were observed between R1 and R2 for any group. c) MWM Latencies: Non-Cued Rats. Platform latencies were different between CCI/No-NSPT and CCI/NSPT rats on d15 (p=0.011) and d18 (p<0.001). NSPT had no effect in the sham condition. During VP trials, there was no difference between CCI/NSPT and Sham/NSPT latencies. Reduced platform latencies across reversal trials were only noted in the CCI/NSPT group (p=0.014). Reversal latency differences for CCI vs. sham groups were not significant within NSPT groups. d) PZTA: Non-Cued Rats. CCI/No-NSPT rats had higher PZ TA than CCI/NSPT rats on d14–18 (p<0.029 all comparisons). During VP trials, CCI/No-NSPT rats had higher PZ TA than other groups (p<0.002 all comparisons). NSPT reduced thigmotaxis for CCI rats (p<0.001). There were no differences between R1 and R2 PZTA for any group. e) MWM Latency Times: NSPT Rats. Extra-maze cues further improved sham performance compared to the non-cued condition on d14 (p=0.043). Sham/cued rats had shorter platform latencies on d14–d17 than CCI/cued rats (p<0.048, all comparisons). For VP trials, allocentric cues did not benefit CCI groups. VP latencies were higher for CCI/cued rats compared to sham/cued rats (p=0.005). However, platform latencies were not different in the non-cued condition. In reversal trials, Latencies were significantly different for CCI/cued and Sham/cued rats on R2 (p=0.009). f) PZ TA: NSPT Rats. CCI rats in both cued and non-cued settings exhibited similar levels of PZ TA, regardless of cues. Sham/cued rats exhibited lower PZ TA than CCI rats on day 15, (p=0.047). During VP trials, PZ TA was similar across CCI and sham groups. During reversal trials there were no differences in PZ TA between R1, R2 for any group (NSPT=non-spatial pre-training, CCI=controlled cortical impact, PT ZA=peripheral time zone allocation).