3.2.3. Coordinated Running Performance

The data were averaged as learning (sessions 1–4) and plateau (sessions 5–7) performance (Figure 2). During the learning phase, GFAP-ApoE4 mice fell faster from the rod than the GFAP-ApoE3 mice, especially males, supported by the main effects of sex, strain and a sex x strain interaction (all *p* < 0.003). A main effect of treatment (*p* = 0.014) was due to Ex-Con and Ex-Aox GFAP-ApoE3 mice exhibiting better performance in males (all *p* < 0.04). The Ex-Con GFAP-ApoE4 group also seemed to have a better performance (*p* = 0.051) which was not seen in the Ex-Aox group. During the plateau phase, there was only an effect of strain, in which GFAP-ApoE4 mice had a poorer performance than the GFAP-ApoE3 mice (*p* < 0.001).

**Figure 2.** Exercise improved learning performance in male GFAP-ApoE3 and GFAP-ApoE4 mice, but not plateau performance. Each value represents mean ± SEM, *n* = 8–16. \* *p* < 0.05 vs. sexand strain-matched Sed-Con groups; # *p* < 0.05 comparing sex-matched Sed-Con GFAP-ApoE3 and GFAP-ApoE4 mice; † *p* < 0.05 comparing strain-matched Sed-Con males and females.
