Fig. 1.

Faster learning in delayed-match-to-place (DMP) dry maze test in PirB−/− mice. a Photograph of modified Dry Barnes Maze Arena used for DMP task. Each mouse had four trials to find the escape box on each day, over a period of 5 days. Median tracks (red trace) from WT and PirB−/− at Day 4 /Trial 4 are superimposed on maze image; white patch indicates location of escape box. In this trial, WT never finds the box, while PirB−/− is successful. b Plot of escape latencies for 2 days of cued (Day 1, Day 2), followed by 3 days of non-cued (Days 3−5), trials. WT and PirB−/− mice performed the task equally well when a visual cue marked escape box during first two testing days (gray area on left); p = 0.204 for WT vs. PirB−/−, 2-way RM Anova. Escape latencies for non-cued trials over the next 3 day period shows steeper learning curves for PirB−/− than WT; performance is almost 3 × better for PirB−/− vs. WT on second day of non-cued trials; p < 0.001 across 3 days of non-cued testing; 2-way RM Anova. c Trials averaged across Day 3, 4, and 5 (non-cued testing) also show significantly better performance by PirB−/− vs. WT; ***p < 0.001; 2-way RM Anova. b, c WT (open symbols): n = 8 mice; PirB−/− (black symbols): n = 13 mice (See also Fig. S1)