Figure 3

Performance and swimming strategies in the Morris water maze between sham, long-latency, and short-latency animals. (A) Time to find the platform and time spent in the target region. No differences were observed in the time to find the platform (in seconds) during Morris water maze training days at week 9 (a1) and week 27 (a3). No differences were observed in the time spent in the target region (Q1) at 9 week (a2) and week 27 (a4) between sham animals (n = 12), stimulated animals (including long- and short-latency animals together; SE, n = 15), the long-latency group (n = 8), and the short-latency group (n = 7) (mean ± SD). (B) Analysis of swimming strategy in the Morris water maze on the test day using RODA software. The short-latency group (n = 7) exhibited a decrease in the number of sections where they presented a scanning (SC) strategy at week 9 of the experiment compared with sham animals (n = 12) (b1). *p < 0.05. No differences were observed between the sham, long-latency, and short-latency groups at week 27 (c2) (mean ± SEM). (C) Comparison of scanning and incursion strategies in the Morris water maze. A higher proportion of scanning (SC) to incursion (IC) was observed in the sham group (n = 12) compared with the short-latency group (n = 7) on the test day of the Morris water maze test at week 9 (*p < 0.05) (c1, c3) and week 27 (*p < 0.05) (c4, c6). No differences were observed between the sham (n = 12) and long-latency (n = 8) groups at week 9 (c1, c2) and week 27 (c4, c5) (mean ± SD).