Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 May 25.
Published in final edited form as: Exp Neurol. 2015 Jul 11;271:445–456. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2015.07.001

Figure 8.

Figure 8

Memory performance is not significantly changed while vestibular motor performance is partially rescued with administration of WP1066. (A) Quantification of average time spent exploring the new object during Novel Object Recognition testing shows that the CCI-S + WP injured mice did not perform statistically differently than either the sham injured controls or CCI-S injured mice. (B) Quantification of average time spent on the Rotarod apparatus shows that the CCI-S injured mice performed significantly worse than the CCI-S + WP injured mice and sham injured controls. * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, P < 0.001 (for A n = 19 for sham, n = 18 for CCI-S and n = 14 for CCI-S + WP at 2 weeks and n = 11 for sham, n = 12 for CCI-S and n = 11 for CCI-S + WP at 16 weeks) (for B n = 20 for sham, n = 28 for CCI-S and n = 29 for CCI-S + WP at 3 days and n = 20 for sham, n = 28 for CCI-S and n = 28 for CCI-S + WP at 7 days and n = 12 for sham, n = 13 for CCI-S and n = 12 for CCI-S + WP at 16 weeks).