Table 2.
Effect of M. inermis in scopolamine-induced cognitive deficit mice in EPM.
| Treatments | Transfer latency (seconds) | Inflexion ratio | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8th day | 9th day | ||
| H2O + Scop | 62.4 ± 2.6 | 57.2 ± 1.8c | 0.09c |
| 39.3 + Scop | 63.2 ± 7.04 | 39.0 ± 2.4∗∗∗ | 0.62∗∗ |
| 98.25 + Scop | 65.4 ± 5.12 | 37.8 ± 2.16∗∗∗ | 0.73∗∗∗ |
| 196.5 + Scop | 68.8 ± 2.96 | 36.2 ± 2.16∗∗∗ | 0.90∗∗∗ |
| 393 + Scop | 63.6 ± 2.32 | 46.4 ± 1.92∗ | 0.37∗ |
| Pira + Scop | 63.4 ± 4.72 | 38.6 ± 2.08∗∗∗ | 0.64∗∗∗ |
| H2O + H2O | 69.6 ± 8.32 | 40.2 ± 1.44∗∗∗ | 0.73∗∗∗ |
Data are mean ± SD, n = 5 per dose. ∗P < 0.05, ∗∗P < 0.01, and ∗∗∗P < 0.001, compared to scopolamine-treated group (H2O + Scop), one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's bilateral comparisons for TL, and Duncan's test for IR. cP < 0.001 compared to normal control group (H2O + H2O), one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's bilateral comparisons for TL, and Duncan's test for IR. H2O: distilled water, Pira: piracetam 200 mg/kg, Scop: scopolamine 0.4 mg/kg.