Copyright © 2008 American Psychological Association. Behav Neurosci. 2008 February; 122(1): 1–8. Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford
S. B. McHugh, T. G. Campbell, A. M. Taylor, J. N. P. Rawlins, and D. M. Bannerman
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford
model: Group
4 × (Barrier
2 × Block
3 × S
38)]. The ANOVA found significant main effects of lesion group, F(3, 34) = 3.99; p < .05, barrier, F(1, 34) = 23.34; p < .001, and block, F(2, 68) = 8.71; p < .001. In addition, there was a barrier × lesion group interaction, F(3, 34) = 6.74; p < .001. Simple main effects analysis and subsequent pairwise comparisons (Fisher's LSD) revealed that group differences were only present following the introduction of the 15 cm barrier, F(3, 34) = 5.75; p < .01. The cHPC group chose the HR arm significantly more than the sham (p < .001) and vHPC groups (p < .01). The dHPC group also chose the HR arm more often than the shams (p < .05) and there was a trend toward the dHPC group choosing the HR arm more than the vHPC group (p = .08).
A separate analysis examined the remaining testing blocks (Figure 2c-h) with the barrier height increasing by 5 cm every 3 blocks (15 cm (after forced trials), 20 cm, 25 cm, 30 cm, 35 cm, and 40 cm). The three blocks at each height were collapsed into one triple-block (designated “barrier height”) and analyzed with a repeated-measures ANOVA