An automated apparatus for the assessment of social preferences in rodents

Abstract

Preference apparatuses offer a straightforward method for the assessment of social preference in a controlled manner. The present paper provides the information necessary for the construction of an automated preference apparatus for rodents and a demonstration of the operation of this apparatus. In a representative study, Peromyscus polionotus females demonstrated preference for intact over castrated males.Ideally, social behavior and social preference should be studied in natural settings. Although this approach may be utilized successfully with diurnal and highly visible species, it is often an impractical or nearly impossible approach for many species. As an alternative , investigators have often turned to the stud y of populations in outdoor

Tests of preferences of deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus bairdi) for individuals and their odors as a function of sex and estrous condition.

“…It is possible that the animal itself may provide some cue not available in the bedding. The automated preference apparatus described by Webster, Williams, Sawrey, and Dewsbury (1984) was used in Experiment 17.…”

Conspecific preferences in prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster, and meadow voles, M. pennsylvanicus

“…The subjects were introduced via a central startbox to begin testing. The numbers of visits and the total durations of visits were recorded automatically by photocells (see Webster et al, 1984).…”

Aggression and familiarity as factors in mate selection in Peromyscus polionotus and Peromyscus maniculatus / by Daniel George Webster.

“…Use of preference apparatus, in addition to allowing more controlled investigation of particular factors (e.g., familiarity) than may be available in seminatural apparatus, allows the experimenter to control the degree of contact between choice animals and stimulus animals. In a tether preference apparatus, for example, stimulus animals are tethered in a fixed area while the choice animal is allowed free access to the apparatus and may express preference through proximity or contact behaviors, or under appropriate conditions, mating behavior (Ward et a I., 1981;Huck & Banks, 1982;Webster, Williams, & Dewsbury, 1982). An alternative method used in preference tests is to place cellars on the stimulus animals, and then place these animals in compartments with doorways of a size large enough to allow access by choice animals, but too small for the collared animals to pass through (Mainardi, Marsan, & Pasquali, 1965;McDonald & Forslund, 1978).…”

“…Direct contact between choice animals and stimulus animals may also be prevented by simply constructing stimulus compartments or containers so that they are not accessible by the choice animal (Agren & Meyerson, 1977;Carmichael, 1980;Carr, Wylie, & Loeb, 1970;Murphy, 1977; Webster, Sawrey, Williams, & Dewsbury, 1982). Experimenters have also opted at times to test preference for odors from stimulus animals rather than using the animals themselves (Carr et al, 1980;Fass, Guterman, & Stevens, 1978;Gilder & Slater, 1978;Huck & Banks, 1979Krames et al, 1967;Ruddy, 1980), or to restrict choice cues to olfactory cues by us<ng anesthetized stimulus animals (Landauer, Banks, & Carter, 1977;Landauer, Seidenberg, & Santos, 1978;Murphy, 1980 obtaining results that are misleading in respect to behavior under more natural conditions.…”

“…Foltz (1979, 1981b) has, however, criticized both the Howard (1949) and Rasmussen (1964) studies on the basis of methodological flaws. This criticism seems well founded on the basis of evidence cited by Foltz (1979), and by observations that reproductive performance in sibling matings in this species is below that for nonsibling matings (Dewsbury, 1982;Hill, 1974).…”