<p><b>A</b>: Escape latency in the three groups from day 1 to 5. (Day 2: *<i>P</i><0.05; Days 3, 4, 5: **<i>P</i><0.01). <b>B</b>: The photographs, from the image capture system of Morris water maze, reflected the escape-latency of APP mice. <b>C</b>: Swimming time in the target quadrant. (**<i>P</i><0.01, <sup>▵▵</sup><i>P</i><0.01) <b>D</b>: Original angle. (**<i>P</i><0.01, <sup>▵▵</sup><i>P</i><0.01) <b>E</b>: The photographs, from the image capture system of Morris water maze, recorded spatial probe process of APP mice. Error bars represent mean ± SEM. Statistical analysis was performed using repeated measures ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test.</p
<p>The (A) latency to locate the correct target hole, (B) velocity during the trial, (C) distance tr...
<p>A: The Morris water maze learning curves of mean latency time for WT and APP/PS1 mice; B: Percent...
<p>Average spatial memory performance during the acquisition phase expressed as escape latency over ...
<p>(<b>A</b>) The average escape latency improved across the training trails in all genotypes, but e...
<p>The average escape latencies, (i.e., the time required for <i>l2hgdh</i><sup><i>+/+</i></sup> and...
<p>Morris Water Maze performance of mtALR (n = 10) and mt129S1 (n = 10) versus control strains BL6 (...
<p>(A) Escape latency to reach the platform during 5 days of training in Morris water maze. The only...
<p>Following learning trials on days two through four, the platform was removed. Mice were allowed t...
<p>All mice (n=8 per group) were trained in a circular pool (100 cm in diameter) located in a lit ro...
<p>WT (n = 9, black symbols and bars) mice and GIT1 KO (n = 10, white symbols and bars) were trained...
<p>(A) Diagram of Morris water maze 1. (B) Mean escape latency during training trials in maze 1. (C)...
<p>GIT1 KO mice (open square, n = 9) and WT (closed circle, n = 9) were subjected to the visible pla...
<p>(a–c) Morris water maze: (a) Comparison of 6-month-old NEP-knockout mice (dotted line with open c...
<p>Five-month-old 3xTg-AD and non-Tg mice were on a mixed C57Bl6/129 background. The non-Tg mice wer...
<p>(<b>A</b>) Effects of ME on escape latency during 3 test trials of day1, 2 and 3 of the treatment...
<p>The (A) latency to locate the correct target hole, (B) velocity during the trial, (C) distance tr...
<p>A: The Morris water maze learning curves of mean latency time for WT and APP/PS1 mice; B: Percent...
<p>Average spatial memory performance during the acquisition phase expressed as escape latency over ...
<p>(<b>A</b>) The average escape latency improved across the training trails in all genotypes, but e...
<p>The average escape latencies, (i.e., the time required for <i>l2hgdh</i><sup><i>+/+</i></sup> and...
<p>Morris Water Maze performance of mtALR (n = 10) and mt129S1 (n = 10) versus control strains BL6 (...
<p>(A) Escape latency to reach the platform during 5 days of training in Morris water maze. The only...
<p>Following learning trials on days two through four, the platform was removed. Mice were allowed t...
<p>All mice (n=8 per group) were trained in a circular pool (100 cm in diameter) located in a lit ro...
<p>WT (n = 9, black symbols and bars) mice and GIT1 KO (n = 10, white symbols and bars) were trained...
<p>(A) Diagram of Morris water maze 1. (B) Mean escape latency during training trials in maze 1. (C)...
<p>GIT1 KO mice (open square, n = 9) and WT (closed circle, n = 9) were subjected to the visible pla...
<p>(a–c) Morris water maze: (a) Comparison of 6-month-old NEP-knockout mice (dotted line with open c...
<p>Five-month-old 3xTg-AD and non-Tg mice were on a mixed C57Bl6/129 background. The non-Tg mice wer...
<p>(<b>A</b>) Effects of ME on escape latency during 3 test trials of day1, 2 and 3 of the treatment...
<p>The (A) latency to locate the correct target hole, (B) velocity during the trial, (C) distance tr...
<p>A: The Morris water maze learning curves of mean latency time for WT and APP/PS1 mice; B: Percent...
<p>Average spatial memory performance during the acquisition phase expressed as escape latency over ...