*3.3.1 Tail flick test*

During the first test, the latency of tail flick of both the pepper and capsaicin groups were significantly longer (p < 0.01 and p < 0.001, respectively) compared to control. The value for the capsaicin group was significantly longer (p < 0.01) compared to that of pepper group (**Figure 3**).

#### *3.3.2 Hot plate test*

The latency of jump of both pepper and capsaicin groups were significantly longer compared to control (p < 0.01 and p < 0.001, respectively). Meanwhile, the latency of jump of the capsaicin group was significantly longer compared to the pepper group (p < 0.001) (**Figure 4a**). While the frequency of hind paw lick of the pepper group was not significantly different compared to the control, the value for capsaicin group was significantly lower compared to both control and pepper groups (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05, respectively) (**Figure 4b**). Pepper group had a paw lick duration that was not significantly different compared to control. However, the value for capsaicin group was significantly shorter (p < 0.01) compared to control (**Figure 4c**).

**179**

**Figure 2.**

*The Effects of Consumption of* Capsicum *on Some Neurobehavioural Parameters*

**3.4 Effects of consumption of chilli pepper (***Capsicum annum***) and capsaicin on** 

*Comparison of (A) foot slips and (B) number of falls in the beam walking test of the different experimental* 

*groups. Values are expressed as mean ± SEM, n = 10. \*\* = p < 0.01, \*\*\* = p < 0.001 vs control.*

The nesting score of the capsaicin group was significantly higher (p < 0.01) compared to control. The value for the pepper group appeared higher than control but was not significant. However, it was significantly lower (p < 0.05) compared to

**3.5 Comparison of swim latency in the Morris water maze test for learning**

During the acquisition training, the capsaicin group had a significant longer (p < 0.001) swim latency on days 2 and 3 compared to control (**Figure 6A**). The swim latency during the reversal training was significantly longer in both capsaicin and pepper groups on day 1 compared to control (p < 0.001) but not different on

**social behaviour in the nesting behaviour test**

that of the capsaicin group (**Figure 5**).

days 2 and 3 (**Figure 6B**).

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91744*

*The Effects of Consumption of* Capsicum *on Some Neurobehavioural Parameters DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91744*

**Figure 2.**

Capsicum

**178**

**3.3 Effects of consumption of chilli pepper (***Capsicum annum***) and** 

During the first test, the latency of tail flick of both the pepper and capsaicin groups were significantly longer (p < 0.01 and p < 0.001, respectively) compared to control. The value for the capsaicin group was significantly longer (p < 0.01)

*Comparison of (a) open arm entry frequency, (b) open arm duration, (c) head dip frequency and (d) stretch attend posture in the elevated plus maze test of the different experimental groups. Values are expressed as mean ± SEM, n = 10. NS = not significant, \*\* = p < 0.01, \*\*\* = p < 0.001 vs control; b = p < 0.001 vs pepper* 

The latency of jump of both pepper and capsaicin groups were significantly longer compared to control (p < 0.01 and p < 0.001, respectively). Meanwhile, the latency of jump of the capsaicin group was significantly longer compared to the pepper group (p < 0.001) (**Figure 4a**). While the frequency of hind paw lick of the pepper group was not significantly different compared to the control, the value for capsaicin group was significantly lower compared to both control and pepper groups (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05, respectively) (**Figure 4b**). Pepper group had a paw lick duration that was not significantly different compared to control. However, the value for capsaicin group was significantly shorter (p < 0.01)

**capsaicin on pain**

compared to that of pepper group (**Figure 3**).

compared to control (**Figure 4c**).

*3.3.1 Tail flick test*

**Figure 1.**

*group.*

*3.3.2 Hot plate test*

*Comparison of (A) foot slips and (B) number of falls in the beam walking test of the different experimental groups. Values are expressed as mean ± SEM, n = 10. \*\* = p < 0.01, \*\*\* = p < 0.001 vs control.*
