Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Fig. 1.
Design of the behavioral procedure.
- Fig. 2.
a, Representative records of the population spike in the CA1 region of the hippocampus before and after HFS of the contralateral ventral hippocampal commissure.b, The average amplitude of the population spike normalized to the average baseline value before HFS.
- Fig. 3.
Left, Progression of the go–no-go discriminative performance evaluated by the no-go/go enter-latency ratio over the first six (1–6) sessions (i.e., the presently observed minimum number of sessions required to attain the criterion) and the last six (n − 5 to n) sessions of training before reaching criterion in stage 1. Middle, Mean no-go/go enter-latency ratio over the last two sessions (n − 1, n) of stage 1.Right, Two-choice discriminative performance expressed as the mean percentage correct over the two daily sessions of stage 2 (n + 1, n + 2). Post hocScheffe test: ***p < 0.001 versus aged + vehicle group; °°°p < 0.001 versus chance (50%).
- Fig. 4.
a, Whole-brain mRNAs in mice killed 24 hr after the fourth daily drug treatment. b, Hippocampal mRNAs in mice killed either 24 hr after the fourth daily administration of treatments (i.e., before the beginning of behavioral training) or after completion of testing in stage 2 (i.e., the day after the 25th daily administration of treatments). All values are expressed as the mean ± SEM of measures derived from three independent samples (n = 3). Each sample unit consisted of two pooled whole brains or two pooled hippocampi (i.e., a total of 6 animals). Post hoc Fisher tests: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; all significantly different from the aged + vehicle group.
In this issue
