Fig. 2.

Spatial memory in App^{NL-G-F/NL-G-F} and App^NL/NL mice during probe tests in the Morris water maze task. a In Probe test 1, App^{NL-G-F/NL-G-F} mice spent less time in the target quadrant than WT mice. All genotypes spent significantly higher percentages of time in the target quadrant than predicted by chance (25%, as indicated by dotted lines). b The number of platform crossings did not differ among genotypes. c App^{NL-G-F/NL-G-F} mice exhibited significantly longer proximity to the platform than WT mice. d and e The total distance travelled and swimming speed in Probe test 1 were similar among genotypes. f In Probe test 2, the percentage of time spent in the target quadrant was significantly lower in App^{NL-G-F/NL-G-F} mice than in WT mice. The percentage of time spent in the target quadrant by App^{NL-G-F/NL-G-F} mice was comparable to the chance level (25%). g The number of platform crossings during the test did not differ among genotypes. h The proximity to the platform was significantly higher in App^{NL-G-F/NL-G-F} mice. i and j Total distance travelled and swimming speed were comparable among genotypes. a–j App^NL/NL mice had normal memory function at 1 and 7 days after the last training session. n = 17 WT (B6J), n = 11 App^NL/NL, n = 16 App^{NL-G-F/NL-G-F}. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, versus WT (B6J). ^††p < 0.01, versus App^NL/NL. ^♯p < 0.05, ^♯♯p < 0.01, ^♯♯♯p < 0.001, versus chance level