A within‐subject between‐apparatus comparison of impulsive choice: T‐maze and two‐lever chamber

Abstract

Whereas intertemporal choice procedures are a common method for examining impulsive choice in nonhuman subjects, the apparatus used to implement this procedure varies across studies. The purpose of the present study was to compare impulsive choice between a two-lever chamber and a T-maze. In Experiment 1, rats chose between a smaller, immediate reinforcer and a larger, delayed reinforcer, first in a two-lever chamber and then in a T-maze. Delay to the larger reinforcer changed in an ascending and descending order (0-32 s) across sessions. Experiment 2 examined the same between-apparatus comparison but under steady-state conditions with the delay fixed at 32 s. In Experiment 1, choice for the larger, delayed reinforcer was generally higher in the T-maze than in the two-lever chamber. Similarly in Experiment 2, steady-state choice for the larger, delayed reinforcer was higher in the T-maze. Choice for the 32-s delayed reinforcer was also greater in Experiment 2 than in Experiment 1, suggesting that extended exposure to the delay is required for the T-maze to yield reliable impulsive choice data. While the reasons for the between-apparatus discrepancies are at present unknown, results from both experiments clearly demonstrate that the apparatus matters when assessing overall level and reliability of impulsive choice data.

The futures of experimental analysis of behavior.

“…Behavioral pharmacology will continue to make important translational contributions. To be successful as a basic science, it must continue to explore and compare novel methods (e.g., Aparicio & Baum, 1997; Cunningham, Kuhn, & Reilly, 2015; Peele & Baron, 1988; Van Hemel, 1972), and along with them the place of the context in the ecology of the organism.…”

Alternate without alternative: neither preference nor learning explains behaviour of C57BL/6J mice in the T-maze

“…In a modification of the discrimination test, the T-maze is also used as a preference test: The arms are provided with different goods, and the animal is required to choose between them. This form of preference test seems to be easily performed with a variety of animal species (mice: Roder et al, 1996;Correa et al, 2015;Cutuli et al, 2015;wild mice: Nunes et al, 2009;rats: Patterson-Kane et al, 2001;Ras et al, 2002;Denk et al, 2004;van der Plasse et al, 2007;Cunningham et al, 2015;Hernandez-Lallement et al, 2015;Wadhera et al, 2017;Leenaars et al, 2019;pigs: Rooijen & Metz, 1987;hens: Dawkins, 1977;broilers: Buckley et al, 2011;zebrafish: Hieu et al, 2020; fruit flies: Fujita & Tanimura, 2011). Preference is usually assessed by offering the goods in the choice arms of the maze but in some cases, it might be useful to use stimuli which are associated with the to-be-tested goods instead, e.g., in tests for social preference, the real mouse might be replaced by urinary stimuli (Nunes et al, 2009; compare also Fitchett et al, 2006).…”

Alternate without alternative: Neither preference nor simple learning behaviour shown by C57BL/6J mice in the T-maze

“…In a modification of the discrimination test, the T-maze can also be used as a preference test: The arms are provided with different goods, and the animal is required to choose between them. This form of preference test seems to be easily performed with a variety of animal species (mice: Cutuli et al 2015; Correa et al 2015; Roder et al 1996; wild mice: Nunes et al 2009; rats: Leenaars et al 2019; Ras et al 2002; Patterson-Kane et al 2001; van der Plasse et al 2007; Denk et al 2004; Hernandez-Lallement et al 2015; Wadhera et al 2017; Cunningham et al 2015; pigs: Rooijen and Metz 1987; hens: Dawkins 1977; broilers: Buckley et al 2011; zebrafish: Hieu et al 2020; fruit flies: Fujita and Tanimura 2011). Preference is usually assessed by offering the goods in the choice arms of the maze but in some cases, it might be useful to use stimuli which are associated with the to-be-tested goods instead, e.g., in tests for social preference, the real mouse might be replaced by urinary stimuli (Nunes et al 2009; compare also Fitchett et al 2006).…”