Automated, quantitative cognitive/behavioral screening of mice: for genetics, pharmacology, animal cognition and undergraduate instruction.

We describe a high-throughput, high-volume, fully automated, live-in 24/7 behavioral testing system for assessing the effects of genetic and pharmacological manipulations on basic mechanisms of cognition and learning in mice. A standard polypropylene mouse housing tub is connected through an acrylic tube to a standard commercial mouse test box. The test box has 3 hoppers, 2 of which are connected to pellet feeders. All are internally illuminable with an LED and monitored for head entries by infrared (IR) beams. Mice live in the environment, which eliminates handling during screening. They obtain their food during two or more daily feeding periods by performing in operant (instrumental) and Pavlovian (classical) protocols, for which we have written protocol-control software and quasi-real-time data analysis and graphing software. The data analysis and graphing routines are written in a MATLAB-based language created to simplify greatly the analysis of large time-stamped behavioral and physiological event records and to preserve a full data trail from raw data through all intermediate analyses to the published graphs and statistics within a single data structure. The data-analysis code harvests the data several times a day and subjects it to statistical and graphical analyses, which are automatically stored in the "cloud" and on in-lab computers. Thus, the progress of individual mice is visualized and quantified daily. The data-analysis code talks to the protocol-control code, permitting the automated advance from protocol to protocol of individual subjects. The behavioral protocols implemented are matching, autoshaping, timed hopper-switching, risk assessment in timed hopper-switching, impulsivity measurement, and the circadian anticipation of food availability. Open-source protocol-control and data-analysis code makes the addition of new protocols simple. Eight test environments fit in a 48 in x 24 in x 78 in cabinet; two such cabinets (16 environments) may be controlled by one computer.

[1]  C. Gallistel,et al.  Time and Associative Learning. , 2010, Comparative cognition & behavior reviews.

[2]  John A. King,et al.  How vision and movement combine in the hippocampal place code , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  Brant K. Peterson,et al.  Discrete genetic modules are responsible for complex burrow evolution in Peromyscus mice , 2013, Nature.

[4]  James G. Burns,et al.  Use of Spatial Information and Search Strategies in a Water Maze Analog in Drosophila melanogaster , 2010, PloS one.

[5]  S. Yehuda,et al.  The use of the Morris Water Maze in the study of memory and learning. , 1989, The International journal of neuroscience.

[6]  C. Gallistel,et al.  Risk assessment in man and mouse , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  Sang Ah Lee,et al.  Independent effects of geometry and landmark in a spontaneous reorientation task: a study of two species of fish , 2012, Animal Cognition.

[8]  P. Pévet,et al.  Neurogenetics of food anticipation , 2009, The European journal of neuroscience.

[9]  C. M. Gallardo,et al.  Food Anticipatory Activity Behavior of Mice across a Wide Range of Circadian and Non-Circadian Intervals , 2012, PloS one.

[10]  C. Gallistel.  The organization of learning , 1990 .

[11]  J. Takahashi.  MOLECULAR NEUROBIOLOGY AND GENETICS OF CIRCADIAN RHYTHMS IN MAMMALS , 1995 .

[12]  Wim E Crusio,et al.  Water maze and radial maze learning and the density of binding sites of glutamate, GABA, and serotonin receptors in the hippocampus of inbred mouse strains , 2000, Hippocampus.

[13]  Richard J. Herrnstein,et al.  Derivatives of Matching. , 1979 .

[14]  C. Gallistel,et al.  Is matching innate? , 2007, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[15]  C. Gallistel,et al.  Mice take calculated risks , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  R. Wehner,et al.  The desert ant odometer: a stride integrator that accounts for stride length and walking speed , 2007, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[17]  A. Blaisdell,et al.  Temporal coding in conditioned inhibition: analysis of associative structure of inhibition. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[18]  R. Paylor,et al.  Hippocampal lesions cause learning deficits in inbred mice in the Morris water maze and conditioned-fear task. , 1997, Behavioral neuroscience.

[19]  A portrait of the substrate for self-stimulation. , 1981 .

[20]  Peter R. Killeen,et al.  Categorical scaling of time: implications for clock-counter models. , 1995 .

[21]  Ralph R. Miller,et al.  Some Constraints for Models of Timing: A Temporal Coding Hypothesis Perspective , 2002 .

[22]  T. A. Mark,et al.  Kinetics of matching. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[23]  J. Wehner,et al.  Differences between inbred strains of mice in Morris water maze performance , 1988, Behavior genetics.

[24]  E. Stone,et al.  The genetics of quantitative traits: challenges and prospects , 2009, Nature Reviews Genetics.