Sentence examples for motor performance compared from inspiring English sources

While Sco2 KOKI mice showed markedly reduced motor performance compared to WT littermates throughout the observation time, the double mutant individuals performed as well as the WT and Parp1 −/− littermates.

Critically, treated mice of both lines exhibited improved motor performance compared to untreated controls.

Previous work with this transgenic line indicated that line D SNCA-overexpressing mice exhibited a significant deficit in motor performance compared to their wild-type counterparts [20].

We have performed additional studies in 4 week-old GM1 mice injected bilaterally in the thalamus and DCN with the same dose of AAV2/1-CBA-mβgal vector used in this study (with and without i.v. infusion of liver-specific AAV vector) to test this possibility, but did not observe any improvement in motor performance compared to age matched untreated GM1 mice (data not shown).

All SOD1 groupsroupshoweded a significant decrease in motor performance, compared to baseline, from ~100 days.

At 48 hours and 7 days post injury, mice receiving DJNKI-1 showed a better motor performance compared with mice receiving saline (P < 0.05 at both time points).

Behavioural testing began at the age of 12 weeks, when N171-82Q mice show a clear difference in motor performances compared with non-transgenic littermates, and mice were then tested every 2 weeks until death or euthanasia due to reaching the humane endpoint.

The present study shows that CLBP patients have worse motor task performance compared to healthy subjects.

It can be concluded that CLBP patients in general have worse motor task performance compared to healthy subjects and that provoking pain-related cognitions further worsened performance.

We observed that surviving mutant mice were severely impaired in their motor coordination performance compared with their WT littermates and that the difference was more evident at 2 months of age compared with 1 month (two-way ANOVA repeated measurements, Bonferroni's post-hoc comparison test, 1 month P>0.05; 2 months P≤0.05, WT versus MUT P8 P20 PT).

To confirm the effect of vibration on motor performance as compared to motor learning, after the retention test was completed without vibration, participants performed an additional block with vibration applied according to their group assignment (CTL = vibration to the passive, non-tracking arm; AV = vibration to the active, tracking arm).