In terms of specific parameters, they showed less presence in the safe place and safe quadrant (effect of group).
On the ensuing platform removal probe session, both the sham- and the LMN-lesioned animals showed a significant preference for the quadrant formerly containing the hidden platform, quadrant effect, F 3, 30) = 15.0, p <.001.
It is also possible to imagine examples of upper left and lower right quadrant effects with a biological basis.
Subsequent analysis of simple main effects revealed that the biggest group difference was for the amount of time spent in the training quadrant (main effect of group for time in the training quadrant, F2,31 = 4.63, P < 0.05).
In the lower left quadrant, this effect is not observed, since here the probing signals of the fast algorithm have opposite polarity to the leakage signals and therefore result in small signal amplitudes for steps two and three of the fast algorithm according to Equations 3 and 4.
As before, no differences between the groups were observed in the percentage of time in the correct quadrant, main effect, F 1, 30) = 1.22, p =.30; Group × Quadrant interaction, F 3, 30) = 1.54; p =.22.
In the second quadrant, the compositional effect is negative, and the regional effect is positive.
In the fourth quadrant, the compositional effect is positive and the regional effect is negative.
The CE plane (figure 2B) shows costs and benefits scattered in the north east quadrant where incremental effects are generally positive (erlotinib better), but with higher costs.
We needed to apply a method that did not treat negative ratios in the same way whether they be caused by greater costs and smaller effects (north-west quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane) or by lower costs and greater effects (south-east quadrant, as we found).
In contrast, GluR2-cKO mice searched equally in all quadrants suggesting they did not learn the spatial location of the platform (no effect of quadrant, F<1).
