Skip to main content
. 2014 Nov 12;1(1):ENEURO.0007-14.2014. doi: 10.1523/ENEURO.0007-14.2014

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Whisking and object recognition tests. A, Whisking behavior comparisons between AC1KO, WT, and WC mice. AC1KO mice showed a lower ratio of active whisking whisker contact with an object compared with WT mice; t(16) = 3.4495, p = 0.0063. WT mice displayed a clear difference in vibration frequencies between symmetry (nontouch) and active (touch) whisking—the frequencies of active whisking were higher than symmetry whisking—while AC1KO mice showed similar frequencies between symmetry and active whisking. This was supported by a two-way ANOVA; strain: F(1,14) = 7.007, p = 0.0191, whisking type: F(1,14) = 25.373, p = 0.0002, and the interaction between strain and whisking type: F(1,14) = 16.174, p = 0.0013. B, Whisking comparisons between CxAC1KO, ThAC1KO, and control AC1flox/− (AC1ff) mice. ThAC1KO mice showed a lower ratio of active whisking during object contact with whiskers than CxAC1KO or their controls (AC1ff); F(2,21) = 9.223, p = 0.0013. CxAC1KO and AC1ff mice displayed a clear difference in vibration frequencies between symmetry (nontouch) and active (touch) whisking—the frequencies of active whisking were higher than symmetry whisking—while ThAC1KO mice show similar frequencies between symmetry and active whisking. This was supported by a two-way ANOVA; strain: F(2,21) = 18.42, p = 0.0035, whisking type: F(1,21) = 72.46, p = 0.002, and the interaction between strain and whisking type: F(2,21) = 17.273, p = 0.0054. C, Texture and object discrimination. In the object discrimination test, there were no significant strain differences throughout trials, while the preference ratio on trials 2 and 3 were higher than trial 1; a two-way ANOVA: strain: F(2,23) = 1.416, p = 0.263; trial: F(2,46) = 67.984, p = 0.0001; and strain × trial: F(2,46) = 1.668, p = 0.1738. However, in the texture discrimination test, WT mice clearly showed a higher preference toward an unfamiliar textured object than familiar one on trials 2 and 3, while AC1KO and WC mice did not show significantly lower preference than WT control on trial 1, but did on trials 2 and 3; a two-way ANOVA: strain: F(2,23) = 26.438, p < 0.0001; trial: F(2,46) = 0.3997, p = 0.634; and strain × trial: F(2,46) = 13.910, p < 0.0001. In the object-discrimination test, there were no significant strain differences between CxAC1KO, AC1ff, and ThAC1KO throughout trials, while the preference ratio on trials 2 and 3 were higher than on trial 1; a two-way ANOVA: strain: F(2,21) = 0.24, n.s.; trial: F(2,42) = 49.57, p = 0.0003; and strain × trial: F(2,42) = 0.38, n.s. In the texture-discrimination test, CxAC1KO and AC1ff mice displayed a higher preference toward an unfamiliar textured object than familiar one on trials 2 and 3, while ThAC1KO mice showed similar preference throughout all three trials; a two-way ANOVA: strain: F(2,21) = 12.45, p = 0.0087; trial: F(2,42) = 13.96, p = 0.0075; and strain × trial: F(2,42) = 9.59, p = 0.0082. All data are expressed as mean ± SEM. * indicates significant differences between strains, # indicates significant differences between trials.