Fig. 3

A Schematic representation of behavior in the MWT and the timeline of behavior training and elevation of neurogenesis. B Mean (± SEM) Escape Latency during MWT training. Both groups showed equivalent reductions in latency as training progressed. C Mean (± SEM) Distance Travelled to the platform during MWT training. Both groups showed equivalent decreases in distance travelled as training progressed. D % Time in the platform zone (% Time in Target) during pre-running (Pre) and post-running (Post) probe trials for runners (Run) and sedentary controls (Sed). Upper graph shows individual data points in swarm plots with means (± SD; gapped vertical line). Chance performance (12%) is shown with a dashed line. Lower graph shows effect size (Cohen’s d) as a black circle with vertical lines and gaussian distributions for the bootstrap 95% CI. Prior to manipulation of neurogenesis, runners and sedentary controls spent an equivalent percentage of time in the platform zone, but after increasing neurogenesis in the running condition, runners spent significantly less time in the platform zone relative to sedentary controls, indicating that running caused forgetting of the platform location. E Latency to the first platform zone crossing (Time to Platform) during pre-running and post-running probe trials. Upper graph shows individual data points in swarm plots with means (± SD; gapped vertical line). Lower graph shows effect size (Cohen’s d) as a black circle with vertical lines and gaussian distributions for the bootstrap 95% CI. After manipulation of neurogenesis, runners took significantly longer to first cross the platform zone than controls, demonstrating that the diminished memory in runners was not an artifact of an altered search strategy