. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Jun 11.

Published in final edited form as: Nat Neurosci. 2002 May;5(5):458–462. doi: 10.1038/nn834

Table 1.

Performance (mean percent correct ± s.e.m.) on sequential order judgments involving different lags.

	Lag 3	Lag 2	Lag 1
Controls	80.0 ± 4.9	79.3 ± 2.8	71.4 ± 1.6
Hippocampus	67.1 ± 2.9	59.3 ± 5.2	58.1 ± 1.4

Scores of each group were combined across lags of 1, 2 or 3 intervening elements between the two probed items (Fig. 1). In general, scores were higher for larger lags (F_2,24 = 3.787, P = 0.037), indicating superior performance when probe items were more separated in the presentation series. Nevertheless, lesioned rats were significantly impaired overall (F_1,12 = 23.769, P < 0.001) and at each lag (lag 3, t₁₂ = 2.274, P = 0.042; lag 2, t₁₂ = 3.412, P = 0.005; lag 1, t₁₂ = 6.208, P < 0.0001), and the magnitude of the deficit did not differ between lags (F_2,24 = 0.778, P = 0.471).