<p>(A) latency, (B) distance and (C) swimming speed in the place learning test; (D) the percentage of time spent in the target quadrant in the probe trial. <i><sup>#</sup>P</i><0.05 when compared with the model group. (note: the 0.522 µg/µl special peptide equimolar to Aβ<sub>1-42</sub>).</p
<p>WT (n = 9, black symbols and bars) mice and GIT1 KO (n = 10, white symbols and bars) were trained...
<p>A) During the 60 second probe, no significant differences between experimental groups were found....
<p>(<b>A</b>) The average escape latency improved across the training trails in all genotypes, but e...
(A) Comparison of the searching distance in the place navigation test; (B) Comparison of the swimmin...
<p>Data shown here correspond to the results obtained in all the rats that were able to swim and to ...
<p>(A) Escape latency for lithium-pilocarpine- (LIP) and kainate- (KA) treated rats of the Wistar st...
<p>(A) The pathway taken to search for the hidden platform. (B) Cumulative distance to reach the pla...
a<p><i>p</i><0.05, compared with control group.</p>b<p><i>p</i><0.01, compared with control group.</...
<p>(A) Learning performance of the animals was analyzed in the training trials by monitoring escape ...
<p>The dashed line represents chance performance (25%). A) During the 60 second probe, all experimen...
The Morris water maze latency [s (mean ± SEM)], path efficiency (mean ± SEM), and average distance f...
<p>(A) Representative traces of the Morris water maze. The performance of rats in the Morris water m...
<p>A. Latency to find the hidden platform on each day of testing; the measure used is the average la...
<p>The dashed line represents chance performance (2%). A) During the 60 second probe, all experiment...
<p>(<b>A</b>) Survival analysis representing the fraction of animals that have found the platform du...
<p>WT (n = 9, black symbols and bars) mice and GIT1 KO (n = 10, white symbols and bars) were trained...
<p>A) During the 60 second probe, no significant differences between experimental groups were found....
<p>(<b>A</b>) The average escape latency improved across the training trails in all genotypes, but e...
(A) Comparison of the searching distance in the place navigation test; (B) Comparison of the swimmin...
<p>Data shown here correspond to the results obtained in all the rats that were able to swim and to ...
<p>(A) Escape latency for lithium-pilocarpine- (LIP) and kainate- (KA) treated rats of the Wistar st...
<p>(A) The pathway taken to search for the hidden platform. (B) Cumulative distance to reach the pla...
a<p><i>p</i><0.05, compared with control group.</p>b<p><i>p</i><0.01, compared with control group.</...
<p>(A) Learning performance of the animals was analyzed in the training trials by monitoring escape ...
<p>The dashed line represents chance performance (25%). A) During the 60 second probe, all experimen...
The Morris water maze latency [s (mean ± SEM)], path efficiency (mean ± SEM), and average distance f...
<p>(A) Representative traces of the Morris water maze. The performance of rats in the Morris water m...
<p>A. Latency to find the hidden platform on each day of testing; the measure used is the average la...
<p>The dashed line represents chance performance (2%). A) During the 60 second probe, all experiment...
<p>(<b>A</b>) Survival analysis representing the fraction of animals that have found the platform du...
<p>WT (n = 9, black symbols and bars) mice and GIT1 KO (n = 10, white symbols and bars) were trained...
<p>A) During the 60 second probe, no significant differences between experimental groups were found....
<p>(<b>A</b>) The average escape latency improved across the training trails in all genotypes, but e...