Abstract

Introduction

Materials & Methods

Results

Discussion & Conclusion

References

Discussion
Board

Escape Learning

click to enlarge

Figure 1 illustrates the cumulative percent of animals who achieved criteria across days 1-5 of training. In comparison to controls, DPH-treated rats were less successful in learning the escape response, as reflected by a significant main effect for drug treatment [F(1,34)=7.23, p<.05]. In contrast, animals treated with CBZ, VPA or ETH quickly reached criterion and were not statistically different from controls.

Acquisition Rate

click to enlarge

Figure 2 presents the percent escape for the first two days of behavior training for carbamazepine, valproic acid, ethosuximide and controls. Even though rats treated with CBZ, VPA, or ETH learned the escape response to levels comparable to controls, the CBZ-treated rats did show a deficit on the first day of training [t(34)=2.67, p<.05]. Not surprisingly, the CBZ-treated rats also displayed a significantly lower average percent escape than both the VPA- [t(17)=2.49, p<.05] and the ETH-treated rats [t(20)=2.11, p<.05].

Escape Latency and Speed

click to enlarge

Figure 3 depicts the latency to escape on day animals met criteria. While a fraction of the phenytoin-treated group successfully mastered the task, they were still slower in locating the platform when compared to controls (F(1,32)=4.38, p<.05).

click to enlarge

Figure 4 represents the swim speed of animals to locate the platform on the day criteria were met. Statistical analyses indicates no differences between any group.

click to enlarge

Figure 5 is a comparison of the swim path length to escape on day animals met criteria. Interestingly, while those phenytoin-treated animals that successfully mastered the task were not statistically different from controls, they were slower than the ethosuximide group (ANOVA, p<.05).

Back to the top.