Fig. 2
Cognitive tasks in wild-type and heterozygous zQ175 mice. (A) Representative image of 9-hole box apparatus for operant testing. (B) Schematic image depicting the basic requirements for response accuracy in the 5CSRTT. Mice attended the 9-hole array then detected a stimulus light that flashed for 1 second. Following this, mice were required to nose poke in the hole to obtain a reward. (C) Response accuracy was impaired in Het mice relative to WT. (D) Reaction time was impaired in Het mice relative to WT. (E) Het mice completed fewer trials than WT mice. (F) Het mice omitted responses more often than WT mice. (G) There were no differences in the rate of perseverative responding between WT and Het mice. (H) Het mice responded prematurely significantly less often than WT mice. (I) Short-term memory novel object recognition task graphic. (J) Short-term memory novel object recognition task graph. There were no differences in performance between WT and Het mice at 3-4, 6-7 or 12-13 months. (K) Long-term memory novel object recognition task graphic. (L) Long-term memory novel object recognition task graph. There were no differences in performance between WT and Het mice at 3-4 or 6-7 months. At 12-13 months, Het mice showed a deficit in task performance. (M) T-Maze graphic. (N) T-Maze alternations graph. There were no differences in performance between WT and Het mice at 3-4 or 6-7 months. At 12-13 months, Het mice showed a slight deficit, although this was not significant. (O) T-Maze sequences graph. There were no differences in performance between WT and Het mice at 3-4 or 6-7 months. At 12-13 months, Het mice showed a significant impairment. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA and pairwise comparisons with Greenhouse–Geisser and Bonferroni corrections where appropriate. Data are mean ± SEM. WT vs Het *p <0.05, **p <0.01, ***p <0.001. (C-H) WT n=7, Het n=6; (J, L, N, O) WT n=10, Het n=10. Wild-type (WT) and heterozygous (Het).
