Judgement bias tasks are promising tools to assess emotional valence in animals, however current designs are often time-consuming and lack aspects of validity. This study aimed to establish an improved design that addresses these issues and can be used across species. Horses, rats, and mice were trained on a spatial Go/No-go task where animals could initiate each trial. The location of an open goal-box, at either end of a row of five goal-boxes, signalled either reward (positive trial) or non-reward (negative trial). Animals first learned to approach the goal-box in positive trials (Go) and to re-initiate/not approach in negative trials (No-go). Animals were then tested for responses to ambiguous trials where goal-boxes at intermediate locations were opened. The Go:No-go response ratio was used as a measure of judgement bias. Most animals quickly learned the Go/No-go discrimination and performed trials at a high rate compared to previous studies. Subjects of all species reliably discriminated between reference cues and ambiguous cues, demonstrating a monotonic graded response across the different cue locations, with no evidence of learning about the outcome of ambiguous trials. This novel test protocol is an important step towards a practical task for comparative studies on judgement biases in animals.

The scientific literature of laboratory animal research is replete with papers reporting poor reproducibility of results as well as failure to translate results to clinical trials in humans. This may stem in part from poor experimental design and conduct of animal experiments. Despite widespread recognition of these problems and implementation of guidelines to attenuate them, a review of the literature suggests that experimental design and conduct of laboratory animal research are still in need of refinement. This paper will review and discuss possible sources of biases, highlight advantages and limitations of strategies proposed to alleviate them, and provide a conceptual framework for improving the reproducibility of laboratory animal research.

The manner in which laboratory rodents are housed is driven by economics (minimal use of space and resources), ergonomics (ease of handling and visibility of animals), hygiene, and standardization (reduction of variation). This has resulted in housing conditions that lack sensory and motor stimulation and restrict the expression of species-typical behavior. In mice, such housing conditions have been associated with indicators of impaired welfare, including abnormal repetitive behavior (stereotypies, compulsive behavior), enhanced anxiety and stress reactivity, and thermal stress. However, due to concerns that more complex environmental conditions might increase variation in experimental results, there has been considerable resistance to the implementation of environmental enrichment beyond the provision of nesting material. Here, using 96 C57BL/6 and SWISS female mice, respectively, we systematically varied environmental enrichment across four levels spanning the range of common enrichment strategies: (1) bedding alone; (2) bedding + nesting material; (3) deeper bedding + nesting material + shelter + increased vertical space; and (4) semi-naturalistic conditions, including weekly changes of enrichment items. We studied how these different forms of environmental enrichment affected measures of animal welfare, including home-cage behavior (time–budget and stereotypic behavior), anxiety (open field behavior, elevated plus-maze behavior), growth (food and water intake, body mass), stress physiology (glucocorticoid metabolites in fecal boluses and adrenal mass), brain function (recurrent perseveration in a two-choice guessing task) and emotional valence (judgment bias). Our results highlight the difficulty in making general recommendations across common strains of mice and for selecting enrichment strategies within specific strains. Overall, the greatest benefit was observed in animals housed with the greatest degree of enrichment. Thus, in the super-enriched housing condition, stereotypic behavior, behavioral measures of anxiety, growth and stress physiology varied in a manner consistent with improved animal welfare compared to the other housing conditions with less enrichment. Similar to other studies, we found no evidence, in the measures assessed here, that environmental enrichment increased variation in experimental results.

A tacit assumption in laboratory animal research is that animals housed within the same cage or pen are phenotypically more similar than animals from different cages or pens, due to their shared housing environment. This assumption drives experimental design, randomization schemes, and statistical analysis plans, while neglecting social context. Here, we examined whether a domain of social context—social dominance—accounted for more phenotypic variation in mice than cage-identity. First, we determined that cages of mice could be categorized into one of three dominance hierarchies with varying degrees of dominance behavior between cage-mates, and low levels of agonistic behavior in the home-cage. Most groups formed dynamic hierarchies with unclear ranks, contrasting with recent accounts of stable transitive hierarchies in groups of mice. Next, we measured some phenotypic traits, and found that social dominance (i.e. dominance hierarchy type and degree of dominance behavior) consistently accounted for some phenotypic variation in all outcome measures, while cage-identity accounted for phenotypic variation in some measures but virtually no variation in others. These findings highlight the importance of considering biologically relevant factors, such as social dominance, in experimental designs and statistical plans.