Table 1.

Mean set loss errors across AST stages, mirroring error analysis in the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (i.e. after 50% or more of the criterion of six consecutive responses has been achieved). EE paradoxically increased set-loss errors on R1 in Sham+VEH+EE rats compared to all other Sham groups (^bp<0.01), although trials to criterion and total errors were similar among all control groups (Figs. 3 and 4). More set loss errors were made by the TBI+STD+VEH on the ED stage as compared to Sham+VEH+EE (^ap<0.05), Sham+CIT+STD, and Sham+CIT+EE (both ^bp<0.01), but not Sham+VEH+STD. CIT and EE reduced set-loss errors in TBI rats (^cp<0.05) when given individually, while the combined treatment led to a more pronounced reduction compared to TBI+VEH+STD rats (^ep<0.001). On the R3 stage, TBI+VEH+STD rats displayed more set loss errors than Sham+VEH+STD rats (^bp<0.01). Additionally, CIT and EE alone reduced set-loss errors in TBI rats (^dp<0.01), while the combined paradigm rendered injured rats to complete the stage without set-loss errors, thus providing significant improvements compared to TBI+VEH+STD (^ep<0.001) and TBI+VEH+EE (^fp<0.05) groups.

Group	SD	CD	R1	ID	R2	ED	R3
Sham+VEH+STD	0.286	0.429	0.429	0.000	0.286	0.571	0.429
Sham+CIT+STD	0.167	0.333	0.167	0.000	0.167	0.167	0.667
Sham+VEH+EE	0.000	0.667	1.500 b	0.000	0.000	0.333	0.500
Sham+CIT+EE	0.000	0.667	0.167	0.000	0.167	0.167	0.167
TBI+VEH+STD	0.400	0.400	0.400	0.100	0.600	1.100 a,b	1.200 b
TBI+CIT+STD	0.286	0.429	0.857	0.286	0.286	0.429 c	0.429 d
TBI+VEH+EE	0.200	0.300	0.400	0.100	0.500	0.500 c	0.500 d
TBI+CIT+EE	0.000	0.556	0.500	0.333	0.333	0.333 e	0.000 e,f