Table 3:
Details of statistics for behavioral analyses during testing. Fmr1 KO mice froze less than WT mice during Tone recall and Context + Tone recall. Compared to their naïve counterparts, Fmr1 KO mice that were fear conditioned did not show increased freezing during Tone recall, indicating a Tone recall deficit.
| Mean ± SD % | Statistic(df) | Effect Size | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recall (24 hours) | |||||
| RM ANOVA- all tests | Effect of Test | F(3, 300) = 197.04 *** | ŋ2 = 0.66 | 0.71 – 0.60 | |
| Effect of Genotype | F(1,100) = 20.35 *** | ŋ2 = 0.17 | 0.30 – 0.05 | ||
| Effect of Condition | F(1, 100) = 110.68 *** | ŋ2 = 0.52 | 0.62 – 0.39 | ||
| Interaction | F(1,100) = 6.02 * | ŋ2 = 0.06 | 0.16 – 0.001 | ||
| WT v fmr1 KO | WT FrC | Fmr1 KO FrC | |||
| Baseline | 1.21 | 0.53 | t(56) = 0.15 | r = 0.02 | 0.27 – (−0.23) |
| Tone | 22.20± 2.71 | 5.91 ± 1.15 | t(56) = 3.70 ** | r = 0.44 | 0.63 – 0.21 |
| Context | 37.48 ± 3.88 | 27.39 ± 4.53 | t(56) = 2.29 | r = 0.29 | 0.51 – 0.042 |
| Context + Tone | 75.00 ± 3.65 | 50.31 ± 4.37 | t(56) = 5.61 *** | r = 0.60 | 0.74 – 0.41 |
| Nv v FrC | WT Nv | WT FrC | |||
| Tone | 3.51 | 22.20 | t(54) = 3.98 *** | r = 0.48 | 0.65 – 0.25 |
| Context | 16.46 | 37.48 | t(56) = 4.47 *** | r = 0.52 | 0.69 – 0.30 |
| Context + Tone | 17.40 | 75.00 | t(56) = 12.26 *** | r = 0.86 | 0.91 – 0.77 |
| Fmr1 KO Nv | Fmr1 KO FrC | ||||
| Tone | 1.30 | 5.91 | t(46) = 1.1 | r = 0.16 | 0.42 – (−0.12) |
| Context | 10.75 | 27.39 | t(46) = 3.98 *** | r = 0.51 | 0.84 – 0.27 |
| Context + Tone | 11.60 | 50.31 | t(46) = 9.27 *** | r = 0.81 | 0.89 – 0.68 |
*
( p = 0.05
**
p = 0.01
***
p =/< 0.001)