Figure 1.
The Reconfigurable Maze
For a Figure360 author presentation of this figure, see https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2019.100787.
(A–E) The maze can be configured to form T (A), W (B), figure-8 (C), plus (D), and radial arm (E) mazes in a single enclosure.
(F) Runway sections are placed atop towers.
(G) The baseplate of each tower has four protrusions that coordinate the placement of the section on the breadboard in a flexible, repeatable way.
(H) Configured plus maze for rats with two feeders (arrows), two movable walls (arrowheads), one treadmill (double arrowhead), and two shut-off sensors (dashed arrows).
(I) Small version of the reconfigurable maze for mice, configured as a figure-8 maze with two feeders (arrows), two movable walls (arrowheads), one treadmill (double arrowhead), and two shut-off sensors (dashed arrows).
(J) Assembly time of the rat version of the reconfigurable maze for morphing the shape from square to cruciform. Performance improved with consecutive trials in a day (performance versus trial: F2,8 = 7.453, p = 0.0149), but not with expertise (expert/beginner) (performance versus expertise: F1,4 = 5.654, p = 0.0762). There was no significant interaction between expertise and experience in a day (expertise versus trial: F2,8 = 0.320, p = 0.735). Two-way mixed ANOVA was used.
(K) Assembly time of the mouse version of the reconfigurable maze for morphing the shape from a rectangle to a T. There was no significant difference between performance and consecutive trials in a day (performance versus trial: F2,8 = 3.997, p = 0.0625) or expertise (expert/beginner) (performance versus expertise: F1,4 = 0.351, p = 0.58). There was no significant interaction between expertise and experience in a day (expertise versus trial: F2,8 = 0.658, p = 0.543).
Two-way mixed ANOVA was used.