Method Article

Assessment of Mouse Judgment Bias through an Olfactory Digging Task

2.5K views

DOI:

10.3791/63426

March 4th, 2022

* These authors contributed equally

In This Article

Summary

This article provides a detailed description of a novel mouse judgment bias protocol. Evidence of this olfactory digging task's sensitivity to affective state is also demonstrated and its utility across diverse research fields is discussed.

Abstract

Judgment biases (JB) are differences in the way that individuals in positive and negative affective/emotional states interpret ambiguous information. This phenomenon has long been observed in humans, with individuals in positive states responding to ambiguity 'optimistically' and those in negative states instead showing 'pessimism'. Researchers aiming to assess animal affect have taken advantage of these differential responses, developing tasks to assess judgment bias as an indicator of affective state. These tasks are becoming increasingly popular across diverse species and fields of research. However, for laboratory mice, the most widely used vertebrates in research and a species heavily relied upon to model affective disorders, only one JB task has been successfully validated as sensitive to changes in affective state. Here, we provide a detailed description of this novel murine JB task, and evidence of its sensitivity to mouse affect. Though refinements are still necessary, assessment of mouse JB opens the door for answering both practical questions regarding mouse welfare, and fundamental questions about the impact of affective state in translational research.

Introduction

Measuring affectively modulated judgment bias (henceforth JB) has proven to be a useful tool for studying the emotional states of animals. This innovative approach borrows from human psychology since humans experiencing positive or negative affective states (emotions and longer-term moods) reliably demonstrate differences in the way they process information1,2,3. For example, humans experiencing anxiety or depression might interpret neutral facial expressions as negative, or neutral sentences as threatening4,5. It is ....

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Protocol

Experiments were approved by the University of Guelph's Animal Care Committee (AUP #3700), conducted in compliance with Canadian Council on Animal Care guidelines, and reported in accordance with ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments)20 requirements.

1. Experiment preparation

  1. Experimental design (see Table 1).
    NOTE: This behavioral test is a scent-based Go/Go digging task, in which mice have to dig for high- or low-value rewards. It uses a rectangular arena (Figure 1) with two arms, in which one arm is scente....

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Results

Results presented here reflect relevant findings from Experiment 1 of Resasco et al.19. Subjects in this experiment were 18 female C57BL/6NCrl ('C57') and 18 Balb/cAnNCrl ('Balb') mice. Animals arrived at the facility at 3-4 weeks of age and were randomly assigned to environmentally enriched or conventional housing treatments (EH or CH, respectively) in mixed strain quartets25. Each cage contained one C57 and one Balb, in addition to two DBA/2NCrl mice being used in another.......

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Discussion

The scent-based digging protocol and results outlined here demonstrate the ability of this novel JB task to detect changes in mouse affective state. The task thus presents a valuable tool for diverse fields of research. Similar to any JB task, to assess animal affect it is critical that animals first learn to discriminate between cues (step 4.7.3) and that the ambiguous stimulus is interpreted as intermediate (step 5.3). Though simple, meeting these requirements can be challenging, particularly in laboratory mice for whi.......

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Disclosures

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Miguel Ayala, Lindsey Kitchenham, Dr. Michelle Edwards, Sylvia Lam and Stephanie Dejardin for their contributions to the Reseasco et al.19 validation work which this protocol is based on. We would also like to thank the mice and our wonderful animal care technicians, Michaela Randall and Michelle Cieplak.

....

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Materials

List of materials used in this article
NameCompanyCatalog NumberComments
Absolute ethanolCommercial alcoholP016EAANDilute to 70% with distilled water, for cleaning
Centrifuge tubesFischer5539515 mL tubes used to dilute essences here. However, size may be selected based on total volume required for sample size
Cheerios (original)CheeriosN/ACommercially available. Used as reward to train animals to enter annex cage for handling
Corncob beddingEnvigo7092Teklad 1/8 corncob bedding used in digging pots and animal cages
Cotton padsEquateN/ACommercially available. Modified in lab to fit within tissue cassettes for scent dispensing
Digging potsRubbermaidN/ACommercially available. Containers were modified to fit the apparatus in the lab
Dried, sweetened banana chipsStock and BarrelN/ACommercially available. High value reward in JB task
JB apparatusN/AThe apparatus was made in the lab
JWatcher event recording softwareAnimal Behavior Laboratory, Macquarie UniversityVersion 1.0Freely available for download online. Used to score digging behavior during JB task
Mint extractFleiborN/ACommercially "Menta (Solución)". Discriminative stimulus odor
Rodent DietEnvigo2914Teklad global 14% protein rodent maintenance diets. Low value reward in JB task and regular diet in home cage
SAS statistical softwareSASVersion 9.4Other comparable software programs (e.g. R) are also appropriate
Vanilla extractFleiborCommercially available "Vainilla (Solución)". Discriminative stimulus odor
Video cameraSonyDCR-SX22Sony handycam.

References

  1. Mathews, A., MacLeod, C. Cognitive vulnerability to emotional disorders. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 1, 167-195 (2005).
  2. Mathews, A., MacLeod, C. Cognitive approaches to emotions. Anual Review of Psychology. 45 (1), 25-50 (1994).
  3. Blanchette, I., Richard....

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Reprints and Permissions

Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article

Request Permission

Tags

Mouse Affective StateAnimal WelfareAmbiguous Cue InterpretationDiscriminative Stimulus OdorBehavioral TestingScent Based TaskVideo ScoringEnvironmental Enrichment

Related Articles