Figure 8. Clustering coefficients. Panels A–E show the clustering coefficient (y-axis) by scan session (x-axis) for the Cognitive Training (left panels; Young: N = 7; Aged: N = 11) and Walking (right panels; Young: N = 5; Aged: N = 8) conditions. A, In the perirhinal cortex, there was not a significant effect of age (Cognitive Training: F(1,16) = 0.02, p = 0.90; Walking: F(1,11) = 0.40, p = 0.54), scan session (Cognitive Training: F(1,16) = 0.72, p = 0.41; Walking: F(1,11) = 2.06, p = 0.18), nor a significant interaction (Cognitive Training: F(1,16) = 1.24, p = 0.28; Walking: F(1,11) = 0.15, p = 0.71). B, In the dorsal hippocampus, there was not a significant main effect of age (Cognitive Training: F(1,16) = 2.43, p = 0.14; Walking: F(1,11) = 0.03, p = 0.86) nor a significant interaction (Cognitive Training: F(1,16) = 0.68, p = 0.42; Walking: F(1,11) = 2.24, p = 0.16). There was not a significant effect of scan session for Cognitive Training (F(1,16) = 0.47, p = 0.50), but there was a significant effect of scan session in the Walking condition (F(1,11) = 14.94, p = 0.003, η2 = 0.58). C, In the infralimbic cortex, for the Cognitive Training condition, there was a significant effect of age (F(1,16) = 4.47, p = 0.05, η2 = 0.22) and an interaction of scan session and age (F(1,16) = 4.43, p = 0.05, η2 = 0.22). There was not a significant effect of scan session (F(1,16) = 1.84, p = 0.19). In the Walking condition, there was a significant effect of age (F(1,11) = 5.31, p = 0.04, η2 = 0.33) and an effect of scan session (F(1,11) = 14.22, p = 0.003, η2 = 0.56). Unlike the Cognitive Training rats, there was not a significant interaction of age and scan session (F(1,11) = 0.26, p = 0.62). D, In the prelimbic cortex, there was not a significant main effect of age (Cognitive Training: F(1,16) = 1.73, p = 0.21; Walking: F(1,11) = 3.54, p = 0.09) or an interaction of scan session and age (Cognitive Training: F(1,16) = 0.01, p = 0.92; Walking: F(1,11) = 0.02, p = 0.89). While there was not an effect of scan session for the Cognitive Training condition (F(1,16) = 0.07, p = 0.80), there was a significant decrease in the Walking condition (F(1,11) = 11.66, p = 0.01, η2 = 0.51). E, In the rostral retrosplenial cortex, there was not a significant main effect of age (Cognitive Training: F(1,16) = 0.50, p = 0.49; Walking: F(1,11) = 2.39, p = 0.15), scan session (Cognitive Training: F(1,16) = 1.91, p = 0.19; Walking: F(1,11) = 2.75, p = 0.13), nor an interaction of scan session and age (Cognitive Training: F(1,16) = 0.18, p = 0.67; Walking: F(1,11) = 0.03, p = 0.87). Error bars are ±1 SEM.