$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
The methods described above were applied to record EEG and rat activity simultaneously after the environmental enrichment treatment. Three-month-old male Wistar rats were under a medium-term environmental enrichment treatment protocol for 20 days, and they were operated to fix six skull screw electrodes paired on frontal, central and parietal regions referenced to a seventh electrode located at NZ. Animals were maintained under natural dark-light conditions, with ad libitum access to food and water. This work shows the integration between the EEG system and the behavioral tracking software for a simultaneous live recording. We only used animals treated under EE protocol since we do not pretend to compare the effectiveness of the treatment, but only exemplify the advantages of the equipment. As evidence that the 20 days environmental enrichment housing protocol used stimulates the adult neurogenesis, we present BrdU positive cell count data from animals under EE and animals housed under standard conditions from unpublished data from our lab. Three-month-old male Wistar rats were used. They were injected three times with BrdU with 12 h between each other. Animals were anesthetized (pentobarbital (50 mg/kg, i.p.) and euthanized by transcardial perfusion (see Figure 5). To ensure that the vest attached to the EEG device does not limit animal movements, we performed the open field test (OFT) into two groups, one group underwent surgery while wearing the equipment (vest and EEG amplifier), and the other group of animals remained intact without wearing the hardware. We did not find significant differences in the distance traveled by the animals in 10 min of testing (see Figure 5). The typical NORT protocol consists of the presentation of two objects, and the replacement of one of them with a new object. The behavioral tracking software monitored exploration time.
The Behavioral Tracking Software recorded a group of animals to evaluate their key performance parameters. Therefore, we used three parameters to evaluate exploration performance. The preference ratio was calculated using the animals' head time spent in the object zone, which reports the total amount of time that the animals' head spent in each object. Also, we calculated a preference ratio for the time spent moving towards the objects, which shows the total amount of time spent on every animal that was moving towards each object zone. Additionally, the spent time per visit to each object was calculated. Figure 6 shows the three-parameter results mentioned above. In the acquisition trial, there were no distinctions between objects in the three assessed parameters: head time in the object zone for the three trials, time moving towards the objects for the three trials, and time per visit in each object. There were no differences in the STM trial. Meanwhile, in the LTM trial, an exploration preferent ratio significantly higher for the novel object was seen. Additionally, in the LTM trial, a preference for the novel object in the time spent per visit (panel C) could be seen, as well. Video 1 shows a representative example of a rat recorded in the experiment while Video 2 shows a representative example of simultaneous EEG and behavioral recording.
It was possible to match time events tracked with the Behavioral Tracking and the EEG software recording using the computer’s clock. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the changes in EEG relative power over alpha and beta bands. These are related to motor control, concentration, and memory, suggesting that exploration is just related to these functions. The results of animal 3 show that alpha power tends to reduce on STM regarding ACQ and LTM, suggesting a desynchronization related to exploration or memory retrieval. The number of object recognition (processed epochs) was low. By this point, it is not possible to determine if a statistical test would validate if such difference is real, or an artifact was able to produce such experimental conditions. Nevertheless, epochs segmentation, labeling, and analysis have become possible by a timeline of simultaneous marking events in animals and EEG outcomes produced for future research projects. Combining these systems prevents a wrongful identification of events by a manual marking process, which has become a significant issue in animal experimentation purposes. The combination of the BTS and electrophysiological (EP) activity could be accurately associated with animal behavior; nevertheless, experimental conditions require the use of advanced signal processing techniques to eliminate motion artifacts and make improvements in the experimental setup effectively.

Figure 1: Examples of enriched environment (EE) conditions cage. Housing was provided with toys and tubes, in which animals find novel and complex but no biological relevance. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Positions of epidural electrodes in the rat skull. The screws were simultaneously used as anchor for the headset and as electrodes. F = frontal; C = frontoparietal; P = parietal; 3 = left; 4 = right; NZ = as the ground reference. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Representative images of an epidural (skull screw) electrodes implantation surgery. Image showing implanted intracranial electrodes screws in rats at different stages of the surgery. Ensure aseptic techniques are followed while performing this procedure. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Representative images of a rat along with the experimental setup. The rat was made to wear the vest attached to the EEG device with an embedded battery, inside the arena used for the NORT protocol. The image shows the headset and the cable connector installed on the head's rat. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 5: Evidence of movement capability, and adult neurogenesis stimulation by EE protocol. (A) Representative images of the animal activity for 10 min in the Open Field Test (OFT) and the mean distance that animals wearing the equipment/surgery traveled, and animals without the equipment/No surgery. (B-E) Representative DG section with BrdU labeled cells (intense dark) for EE and standard housing groups. Panels B and D show a low magnification of the DG, and panels C and E show the box area at higher magnification. Panels B and C are tissue from the EE housing group, panels D and E are from the standard housing group. The inset illustrates the average numbers of labeled cells in both groups. ML - molecular layer; GCL – granular cell layer; SGZ – subgranular zone; arrows - BrdU+ cells. The graphs show the mean ± SEM. The T-student test was used to compare groups. * p≤0.05. No significant differences were found between groups in the Open Field Test. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 6: Exploration performance in NORT assessment. (A) Head time in the object zone for the three trials. (B) Time moving towards the objects for the three trials. (C) Time per visit in each object. The graphs show the mean ± SEM. Two-way repeated-measures ANOVA with Sidak's multiple comparisons test was used in all parameters. * p≤0.05, ** p≤0.01 between the objects in the respective trial. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 7: Changes over alpha EEG band power associated with exploration. This figure show changes in relative alpha power, from half second to 2.5 after animal begins the exploration of the objects. The six graphs corresponded to Frontal, Central, and Parietal electrodes (from top to bottom) and left and right sides. Boxplots show the distribution of such time series for each condition combination of an Object: “Familiar” and “Novel,” and stage: “ACQ,” “STM” and “LTM.” Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 8: Changes over beta EEG band power associated with exploration. This figure show changes on relative beta power, from half second to 2.5 after animal begins the exploration of the objects. The six graphs corresponded to Frontal, Central, and Parietal electrodes (from top to bottom) and left and right sides. Boxplots show the distribution of such time series for each condition combination of an Object: “Familiar” and “Novel,” and stage: “ACQ,” “STM” and “LTM.” Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Video 1: Representative video showing a rat recorded in the experiment. The rat was inside the arena used for the NORT protocol. The rat was wearing the vest attached to the EEG device with an embedded battery. Please click here to download this video.
Video 2: Representative video showing simultaneous EEG and behavioral recording. EEG signal was displayed on the left side while the behavioral test (NORT) was displayed on the right side of the video. Please click here to download this video.