This work was funded by a Wellcome Trust/Royal Society Henry Dale Fellowship (098400/Z/12/Z), a Medical Research Council (MRC) grant MC-UP-1201/1, a Wellcome Trust and Gatsby Charitable Foundation SWC Fellowship (to T.B.), MRC PhD Studentship (to D.E. and R.V) and a Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds PhD fellowship (to R.V). We thank Kostas Betsios for programming the data acquisition software, the LMB Mechanical and Electrical Workshops for building the experimental arena.

All experiments were performed under the UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act of 1986 (PPL 70/7652) following local ethical approval.
1. Setting up the Behavioral Apparatus
NOTE: The main component of the behavioral apparatus is a variant of the Barnes maze13 consisting of a white acrylic circular platform (92 cm in diameter) with 20 equidistant, 5 cm diameter, circular holes, located radially, 5 cm from the edge of the platform. 19 of these are to be closed with black plastic plug (5 mm deep), while the remaining hole leads to a black Perspex shelter (dimensions 15 x 5.8 x 4.7 cm) that mice can easily enter and exit. The central area of the arena consists of a fixed circular platform (22 cm in diameter) and the periphery is mounted on a frame that allows rotation over 360 degrees through a computer-controlled stepper motor. The platform is elevated 45 cm from the floor to prevent the mice from climbing down. See schematic drawing in Figure 1.
<ol>
	<li>Attach visual cues to the periphery of the platform (2D or 3D symbols with different shapes, colors and patterns), at least 2 cm away from the edge to prevent mice from reaching them. 
	NOTE: Examples of visual cues are plain blue squares of 262 cm2, or circles (diameter of 15.5 cm) filled with diagonal purple stripes.</li>
	<li>Add ~2 g of bedding from the mouse&#39;s home-cage to the inside of the shelter to serve as a local olfactory cue. Optionally, position a light emitting diode (LED) at the entrance of the shelter to provide a local visual landmark cue.</li>
	<li>To isolate the mouse from external, distal visual cues, assemble an octagonal or cylindrical wall, extending 40 cm above and 15 cm under the platform surface, around the arena, positioned 10 cm away from the edge of the platform.</li>
	<li>Position an ultrasound speaker 50 cm above the center of the platform, to deliver aversive auditory stimuli.</li>
	<li>Place a translucent screen 64 cm above the arena to back-project overhead aversive visual stimuli using a projector.</li>
	<li>The light provided by the projector will illuminate the behavioral apparatus; calibrate it so that there is 5-10 lx at the center of the platform surface. Place infrared lights and an infrared camera above the platform, with a long-pass filter (&#62;700 nm) to prevent projector flicker in the acquired video.</li>
	<li>Track the position of the mouse online, using either commercially available software or a suitable algorithm. For tracking black mice on a white arena, a simple thresholding operation followed by calculation of the mask centroid is appropriate.</li>
	<li>Ideally, place the behavioral apparatus inside a sound- and light-proof box, to prevent external cues from affecting the experiment.</li>
</ol>
2. Delivering Innately Aversive Stimuli
NOTE: The stimuli described below can be generated with a wide range of different software packages, including LabVIEW and Matlab.
<ol>
	<li>Visual stimulus
	<ol>
		<li>Project the stimuli on to the screen positioned 64 cm above the arena. The stimulus consists of a linearly expanding dark circle on a grey background22 (Weber contrast = -0.98, luminance = 7.95 cd/m2). 
		NOTE: The standard circle should ideally be centered directly above the position of the mouse, subtending a visual angle of 2.6&#176; at onset and expands linearly at 224&#176;/s over 200 ms to 47.4&#176;, at which it remains for 250 ms before offset.</li>
		<li>When delivering the visual stimulus, center it above the mouse. This can be achieved either by waiting until the mouse passes through a pre-defined region in the arena, or by tracking the mouse position online and using the tracking coordinates to define the center of the circle. 
		NOTE: Although we suggest projecting the visual stimulus directly above the mouse, defensive behaviors can also be elicited if the same stimulus is projected ahead of the mouse (while still parallel to the floor). In our experience, this is the case at least until 30 cm ahead of the mouse&#39;s position.</li>
	</ol>
	</li>
	<li>Auditory stimulus
	<ol>
		<li>Trigger a stimulus consisting of a train of three frequency-modulated up-sweeps from 17 to 20 kHz23 over 3 s, lasting 9 s in total. The sound pressure level (SPL), measured at the platform level, should be in a range between 73 and 78 dB.</li>
		<li>Connect a soundcard and an amplifier to the ultrasound speaker positioned above the arena to deliver the auditory stimulus.</li>
	</ol>
	</li>
</ol>
3. Animals:
<ol>
	<li>Use male or female C57BL/6J mice, between 6 and 24 weeks old. Maintain the animals on a 12 h light cycle with free access to chow and water.</li>
	<li>Ensure that the mice are single housed at least 72 h before the behavioral assay and test&#160;them during the light-phase of the light cycle. 
	NOTE: We find that the baseline exploratory behavior of single-housed mice is more comparable across animals than across group-housed mice. In addition, animals with surgical implants for neural activity recording or manipulation often need to be single housed, and it can thus be beneficial to have control datasets in the same housing conditions.</li>
</ol>
4. Standard Behavioral Assay:
<ol>
	<li>Meticulously clean the surface of the platform with 70% ethanol or acetic acid to remove unwanted olfactory cues. Rinse the shelter with water and wash it with 70% ethanol, after which it should be rinsed with water again to lessen the ethanol odor.</li>
	<li>Dry both the platform and the shelter thoroughly, as the mouse may avoid entering the shelter if it is wet.</li>
	<li>Randomize the location of the shelter in the platform for each trial by rotating the platform before the experiment. The shelter location will be anchored in the arena but will be rotated in relation to the behavioral apparatus enclosure.</li>
	<li>Bring the mouse to the experiment room in its home-cage and place the cage on top of the testing platform for a 10 min acclimatization period.</li>
	<li>Remove the mouse from its home-cage and avoid retrieving by the tail: either cup it or let it climb onto an enrichment item that can be lifted. Picking mice by the tail has been show to increase anxiety levels&#160;and thus may affect behavioral responses to threat24.</li>
	<li>Gently place the mouse in the center of the arena and start the video-acquisition.</li>
	<li>Allow for a 7 min habituation period, during which no aversive stimulus is presented. Ensure that the mouse has enough time to find and enter the shelter at least once. Consider it as an entry if all four limbs are inside the shelter. 7 min should be enough for the majority of the mice to find and enter the shelter, but in case this does not happen, extend the habituation period by additional periods of 5 min until at least one entrance has been verified.</li>
	<li>Trigger the delivery of the aversive stimulus (auditory or visual) either manually by observing the live video feed, or automatically by tracking the position of the animal online and pre-defining a region of interest in the arena for triggering stimulus-delivery once the animal reaches it. The visual stimulus is usually delivered directly above the animal using the online video tracking coordinates.</li>
	<li>To elicit more than one escape response in the same session, let the mouse voluntarily leave the shelter. If the mouse did not successfully escape to the shelter upon the last aversive stimulus, wait at least 60 s before presenting another stimulus.</li>
	<li>After the assay is finished, return the animal to its home-cage. In case further testing of the same mouse is required, wait at least 48 h before retesting.</li>
	<li>Clean the platform and the shelter as described in step 4.1 and 4.2 before testing the next animal.</li>
</ol>
NOTE: Steps 5, 6 and 7 are independent variations of the standard behavioral assay and each can be performed individually.
5. &#39;Navigation Strategy&#39; Behavioral Assay:
NOTE: The goal of this assay is to determine what cues mice use to guide escape behavior. In this assay, the movable outer portion of the platform is rotated while the mouse is on the fixed arena center, which radially displaces the shelter, the olfactory cues located inside the shelter and the proximal visual cues attached to the platform. If the mouse is following any of the cues that have been rotated in order to navigate to the shelter, it will correctly escape to the new location of the shelter, but if it uses any other cues that have remained in place, it will navigate to the previous shelter location.
<ol>
	<li>Perform steps 4.1 to 4.8 of the standard behavioral assay described above, eliciting at least one flight response to be used as baseline.</li>
	<li>Let the mouse actively leave the shelter and wait for it to navigate to the central part of the platform. Position a small dish with bedding in the center to encourage exploration and keep the animal in the central platform long enough to allow the rotation of the outer portion of the platform. Add the dish and bedding while the mouse is inside the shelter and after the successful escape that precedes the rotation of the platform. If the mouse fails to enter the shelter during the escape response, wait for it to voluntarily enter the shelter and then add the dish and bedding.</li>
	<li>Use the stepper motor to rotate the platform at least 36 degrees (2 holes) and then immediately use a sensory stimulus to elicit an escape response. It is possible that the rotation triggers a startle and even initiates an escape response. 
	NOTE: From our experience, ~55% of the mice will run outside of the central (non-rotating) platform while the external portion is still rotating, and these trials should be excluded from the analysis.</li>
	<li>Clean the platform and shelter, and return the mouse to its home-cage as described in step 4.10 and 4.11.</li>
</ol>
6. &#39;Dynamic Environment&#39; Behavioral Assay:
NOTE: This assay is designed to evaluate how mice adapt their defensive behaviors to sudden changes in the environment. In these experiments, after eliciting at least one escape response, the location of the shelter is changed and the mouse is allowed to visit it once before a subsequent escape response is triggered. If the mouse perfectly updates the new location of the shelter and computes the absence of the shelter in its previous location, it should escape to the new location. Otherwise, either it has not memorized the new location of the shelter or it has memorized both locations but prefers to escape to the old one.
<ol>
	<li>Perform this assay after steps 4.1 to 4.8 described above, eliciting at least one flight response as a control.</li>
	<li>Once the mouse voluntarily leaves the shelter, remove the shelter and re-position it in a new hole at the opposite end of the platform.</li>
	<li>Allow the mouse to explore the environment until it enters the shelter at its new location.</li>
	<li>When the mouse voluntarily comes out of the shelter, present it with an aversive stimulus and observe its response.</li>
	<li>Use the auditory stimulus for this experiment because of its longer duration, as under prolonged threat, animals may perform additional escape responses to other locations if they fail to find the shelter at first.</li>
	<li>Clean the platform and shelter and return the mouse to its home-cage as described in steps 4.10 and 4.11.</li>
</ol>
7. &#39;No Shelter&#39; Behavioral Assay:
NOTE: The aim of this assay is to understand how the absence of a shelter in the environment affects the expression of defensive behaviors.
<ol>
	<li>Plug all 20 holes. In this experiment, there is no shelter available in the arena.</li>
	<li>After cleaning and drying the platform (steps 4.1 and 4.2), carry out steps 4.4-4.6.</li>
	<li>Allow a 7 min habituation period.</li>
	<li>Present the visual stimulus and observe the defensive response. The lack of a shelter promotes freezing behavior, usually lasting for the duration of the visual stimulus. Use a slowly expanding spot (e.g.&#160;a circle that subtends a visual angle of 2.6&#176; at onset and expands linearly at 11.2&#176;/s over 4 s to 47.4&#176;, at which it remains for 1 s before offset) to facilitate the observation of freezing responses.</li>
	<li>If more than one response per mouse is required, use an inter-stimulus interval of at least 60 s.</li>
	<li>After obtaining the required number of responses in the absence of the shelter, introduce the shelter under one of the holes and let the mouse explore the environment for at least 5 min. 5 min will be enough time for most mice to find and enter the newly introduced shelter, but in case this does not happen, extend this period by additional 5 min blocks until at least one entry is verified.</li>
	<li>Repeat steps 4.8 and 4.9, and observe escape responses performed in the presence of a shelter in the environment.</li>
	<li>Clean the platform and shelter and return the mouse to its home-cage as described in steps 4.10 and 4.11.</li>
</ol>
8. Data Analysis:
NOTE: Each of the following data analysis steps can be performed independently.
<ol>
	<li>Escape responses can be easily identified as a sudden acceleration following the presentation of an aversive stimulus. Quantify the latency to escape as the time between stimulus presentation and either the beginning of a head rotation movement directed at the target of the escape or the beginning of the acceleration movement, whichever comes first.</li>
	<li>Freezing responses can be characterized by total immobility of the animal except for breathing movements25, lasting at least 0.5 s7. Measure the latency to freeze as the time between the presentation of the aversive stimulus and the beginning of the immobility period.</li>
	<li>For each escape response, quantify the linearity of the flight path by calculating the ratio of the distance between the mouse and the shelter and the actual displacement during the flight.</li>
	<li>For each escape response, calculate the accuracy by measuring the distance between the hole where the animal directed its flight to and the hole leading to the shelter. Since there are 20 holes, each hole off target represents a decrement of 10% in accuracy (e.g., 2 holes off target can be expressed as 80% accuracy)</li>
	<li>For the &#39;navigation strategy&#39; behavioral assay, quantify the accuracy of the response relative to the shelter location before the platform rotation. An average accuracy that is not significantly different from the pre-rotation accuracy indicates that the animal is not using any of the sensory cues that were rotated in order to navigate to the escape target.</li>
	<li>For the &#39;dynamic environment&#39; behavioral assay, classify each escape response elicited as being directed towards the new or the old shelter location, or to neither of them. Evaluate how the pattern evolves along the iterations of the elicited defensive behaviors.</li>
	<li>For the &#39;no shelter&#39; behavioral assay, compare the mouse&#39;s speed following the presentation of aversive visual stimulus in the presence and absence of a shelter and calculate the latency to the initiation of the defensive response. Additionally, calculate the probability of triggering a freezing response in response to the stimulus for each situation.</li>
</ol>

<ol>
	<li>Eaton, R. C., Bombardieri, R. A., Meyer, D. L. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=The+Mauthner-initiated+startle+response+in+teleost+fish.">The Mauthner-initiated startle response in teleost fish.</a> J Exp Biol. 66 (1), 65-81 (1977).</li><li>Vale, R., Evans, D. A., Branco, T. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Rapid+Spatial+Learning+Controls+Instinctive+Defensive+Behavior+in+Mice.">Rapid Spatial Learning Controls Instinctive Defensive Behavior in Mice.</a> Curr Biol. 27 (9), 1342-1349 (2017).</li><li>Blanchard, R. J., Flannelly, K. J., Blanchard, D. C. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Defensive+behavior+of+laboratory+and+wild+Rattus+norvegicus.">Defensive behavior of laboratory and wild Rattus norvegicus.</a> J Comp Psychol. 100 (2), 101-107 (1986).</li><li>Dill, L. M., Houtman, R. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=The+influence+of+distance+to+refuge+on+flight+initiation+distance+in+the+gray+squirrel+(Sciurus+carolinensis).">The influence of distance to refuge on flight initiation distance in the gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis).</a> Canadian Journal of Zoology. 67 (1), 233-235 (1989).</li><li>Blanchard, R. J., Blanchard, D. C., Rodgers, J., Weiss, S. M. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=The+characterization+and+modelling+of+antipredator+defensive+behavior.">The characterization and modelling of antipredator defensive behavior.</a> Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 14 (4), 463-472 (1990).</li><li>Fanselow, M. S., Lester, L. S. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=A+functional+behavioristic+approach+to+aversively+motivated+behavior:+Predatory+imminence+as+a+determinant+of+the+topography+of+defensive+behavior.">A functional behavioristic approach to aversively motivated behavior: Predatory imminence as a determinant of the topography of defensive behavior.</a> Evolution and learning. , (1988).</li><li>De Franceschi, G., Vivattanasarn, T., Saleem, A. B., Solomon, S. G. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Vision+Guides+Selection+of+Freeze+or+Flight+Defense+Strategies+in+Mice.">Vision Guides Selection of Freeze or Flight Defense Strategies in Mice.</a> Curr Biol. 26 (16), 2150-2154 (2016).</li><li>Br&#228;cker, L. B., et al. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Essential+role+of+the+mushroom+body+in+context-dependent+CO+2+avoidance+in+Drosophila.">Essential role of the mushroom body in context-dependent CO 2 avoidance in Drosophila.</a> Current Biology. 23 (13), 1228-1234 (2013).</li><li>Ghosh, D. D., et al. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Neural+architecture+of+hunger-dependent+multisensory+decision+making+in+C.+elegans.">Neural architecture of hunger-dependent multisensory decision making in C. elegans.</a> Neuron. 92 (5), 1049-1062 (2016).</li><li>Bellman, K. L., Krasne, F. B. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Adaptive+complexity+of+interactions+between+feeding+and+escape+in+crayfish.">Adaptive complexity of interactions between feeding and escape in crayfish.</a> Science. 221 (4612), 779-781 (1983).</li><li>Rodgers, W., Melzack, R., Segal, J. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term="Tail+flip+response"+in+goldfish.">"Tail flip response" in goldfish.</a> Journal of comparative and physiological psychology. 56 (5), 917 (1963).</li><li>Dill, L. M. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=The+escape+response+of+the+zebra+danio+(Brachydanio+rerio)+II.+The+effect+of+experience.">The escape response of the zebra danio (Brachydanio rerio) II. The effect of experience.</a> Animal Behaviour. 22 (3), 723-730 (1974).</li><li>Barnes, C. A. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Memory+deficits+associated+with+senescence:+a+neurophysiological+and+behavioral+study+in+the+rat.">Memory deficits associated with senescence: a neurophysiological and behavioral study in the rat.</a> J Comp Physiol Psychol. 93 (1), 74-104 (1979).</li><li>Pompl, P. N., Mullan, M. J., Bjugstad, K., Arendash, G. W. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Adaptation+of+the+circular+platform+spatial+memory+task+for+mice:+use+in+detecting+cognitive+impairment+in+the+APP(SW)+transgenic+mouse+model+for+Alzheimer's+disease.">Adaptation of the circular platform spatial memory task for mice: use in detecting cognitive impairment in the APP(SW) transgenic mouse model for Alzheimer's disease.</a> J Neurosci Methods. 87 (1), 87-95 (1999).</li><li>Patil, S. S., Sunyer, B., H&#246;ger, H., Lubec, G. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Evaluation+of+spatial+memory+of+C57BL/6J+and+CD1+mice+in+the+Barnes+maze,+the+Multiple+T-maze+and+in+the+Morris+water+maze.">Evaluation of spatial memory of C57BL/6J and CD1 mice in the Barnes maze, the Multiple T-maze and in the Morris water maze.</a> Behavioural Brain Research. 198 (1), 58-68 (2009).</li><li>Sunyer, B., Patil, S., H&#246;ger, H., Lubec, G. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Barnes+maze,+a+useful+task+to+assess+spatial+reference+memory+in+the+mice.">Barnes maze, a useful task to assess spatial reference memory in the mice.</a> Protocol Exchange. , (2007).</li><li>Attar, A., et al. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=A+shortened+Barnes+maze+protocol+reveals+memory+deficits+at+4-months+of+age+in+the+triple-transgenic+mouse+model+of+Alzheimer's+disease.">A shortened Barnes maze protocol reveals memory deficits at 4-months of age in the triple-transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease.</a> PLoS One. 8 (11), e80355 (2013).</li><li>Harrison, F. E., Reiserer, R. S., Tomarken, A. J., McDonald, M. P. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Spatial+and+nonspatial+escape+strategies+in+the+Barnes+maze.">Spatial and nonspatial escape strategies in the Barnes maze.</a> Learn Mem. 13 (6), 809-819 (2006).</li><li>Leary, T. P., Brown, R. E. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=The+effects+of+apparatus+design+and+test+procedure+on+learning+and+memory+performance+of+C57BL/6J+mice+on+the+Barnes+maze.">The effects of apparatus design and test procedure on learning and memory performance of C57BL/6J mice on the Barnes maze.</a> J Neurosci Methods. 203 (2), 315-324 (2012).</li><li>Mittelstaedt, M. -. L., Mittelstaedt, H. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Homing+by+path+integration+in+a+mammal.">Homing by path integration in a mammal.</a> Naturwissenschaften. 67 (11), 566-567 (1980).</li><li>Stackman, R. W., Golob, E. J., Bassett, J. P., Taube, J. S. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Passive+transport+disrupts+directional+path+integration+by+rat+head+direction+cells.">Passive transport disrupts directional path integration by rat head direction cells.</a> J Neurophysiol. 90 (5), 2862-2874 (2003).</li><li>Yilmaz, M., Meister, M. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Rapid+innate+defensive+responses+of+mice+to+looming+visual+stimuli.">Rapid innate defensive responses of mice to looming visual stimuli.</a> Curr Biol. 23 (20), 2011-2015 (2013).</li><li>Mongeau, R., Miller, G. A., Chiang, E., Anderson, D. J. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Neural+correlates+of+competing+fear+behaviors+evoked+by+an+innately+aversive+stimulus.">Neural correlates of competing fear behaviors evoked by an innately aversive stimulus.</a> J Neurosci. 23 (9), 3855-3868 (2003).</li><li>Hurst, J. L., West, R. S. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Taming+anxiety+in+laboratory+mice.">Taming anxiety in laboratory mice.</a> Nat Methods. 7 (10), 825-826 (2010).</li><li>Paylor, R., Tracy, R., Wehner, J., Rudy, J. W. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=DBA/2+and+C57BL/6+mice+differ+in+contextual+fear+but+not+auditory+fear+conditioning.">DBA/2 and C57BL/6 mice differ in contextual fear but not auditory fear conditioning.</a> Behavioral neuroscience. 108 (4), 810 (1994).</li><li>Paul, C. M., Magda, G., Abel, S. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Spatial+memory:+Theoretical+basis+and+comparative+review+on+experimental+methods+in+rodents.">Spatial memory: Theoretical basis and comparative review on experimental methods in rodents.</a> Behav Brain Res. 203 (2), 151-164 (2009).</li></ol>

Most of the data included in the results section is a subset of the data presented in Vale et. al 2017.

The assays we describe here are technically straightforward to perform, and with the exception of the platform rotation experiments, can be readily implemented in a standard Barnes maze. Nevertheless, a few complications may arise: on the one hand, the mouse may seem afraid of entering the shelter, which may be due to&#160;the shelter not being sufficiently cleaned or dried. On the other hand, the mouse may stay inside the shelter for very long periods of time. It is critical for these experiments that animals are never removed from the shelter manually, as this can disrupt path integration as well as distress the animals and change their response to threat. We suggest terminating the experiment after 90 min and retesting after 48 h if necessary. Another relevant practical consideration is that when the mouse investigates the edge of the platform, it may not detect visual stimuli if its head is angled over the edge, and thus we recommend withholding the stimuli in such situations. Additionally, mice may jump down off the platform on rare occasions. We suggest ending the experiment and retesting after 48 h. Mice that actively leave the platform once are likely to do it again in the future and may have to be excluded from the study. Finally, from our experience, most mice will respond to the visual stimulus (34/36 mice). However, if the mice do not show any type of response to the visual stimulus (either a startle, a flight or a freezing response), they should be excluded from the study.
An important point to consider is that the control of sensory cues is typically a problem in spatial memory assays, as often it is difficult to eliminate all possible sources of contaminating cues. Our experimental setup reduces external visual cues by surrounding the maze with a wall, and it is placed inside a sound-dampening cabinet for sound isolation. To minimize olfactory cues, we recommend thoroughly cleaning the set-up with 70% ethanol or acetic acid between experiments.
Our behavioral assay adds to previous methods for studying spatial navigation26 by using instinctive defensive behaviors to probe spatial memory and focusing on ethological scenarios. A critical difference between the procedures described here and the standard BM assay is the lack of training sessions. In our assays, the habituation period ensures that the mouse visits the shelter at least once and often many more times, which we have previously shown to be sufficient to memorize the shelter location2. We believe that an important reason for the high success rate and accuracy in finding the shelter despite the lack of training is never passively displacing the animal during the experiment, thus making path integration a viable navigation strategy. We note however that our assay deals with memory formed and assessed during a single session, and that we have not tested for long-term memory of shelter location, which is usually the objective of standard BM experiments. Finally, by using discrete innately aversive stimuli rather than the commonly used fan or buzz for the duration of the session, our assay provides very good experimental control over two behaviors that might use different navigation strategies: foraging and shelter-directed escape. We believe that the use of these assays in combination with modern neuroscience techniques for recording and manipulating neural activity can provide important insights into how neural circuits compute behavior.

Instinctive defensive behaviors are largely considered to be hardwired stimulus-responses, such as the C-start movement in fish and amphibians, which moves the animal away from a threat source1. However, defensive behaviors can be more adaptive if they flexibly take into account&#160;information learned about the current environment. One example of such flexibility is the switch from escape to freezing shown by rodents when faced with threat, depending on prior knowledge about the presence or absence of a shelter in the environment2,3. Other examples of flexibility in innate behaviors include adapting the flight initiation threshold or escape speed depending on the distance between a prey and its shelter4, distance to threat5,6, and previous experience11,12, as well selecting different defensive strategies depending on the sensory properties of the aversive stimulus7, or even suppressing defensive behavior in face of competing motivations such as hunger8,9,10. The dependency of action selection on acquired knowledge about the spatial features of the environment makes instinctive defensive behaviors in mice a powerful model for studying goal selection, spatial memory and navigation. Here, we describe the adaptation of a commonly used behavioral task, the Barnes maze (BM) spatial memory assay13, to determine the influence of the spatial environment on defensive action selection in mice, and their navigation strategies when escaping towards a shelter.
The standard Barnes maze used to study learning and spatial memory in mice consists of a circular ~90 cm diameter platform with 20 equally spaced holes, of which 19 are closed, and one leads to an underground shelter&#160;which mice seek in order to avoid the open-field environment of the platform. Often, weak aversive stimuli (buzzer, bright light, fan) are used continuously throughout the assay to make the environment aversive and thus promote entry into the shelter14. In the most commonly used assay15,16, the animal has one habituation trial where it is guided to the shelter manually by the experimenter immediately after being positioned on the platform. This is followed by a 4-day acquisition period, where each day the mouse is allowed to navigate freely in the maze for 3 min, after which it is again manually guided to the shelter if it does not reach it during the exploration period. The last stage of the assay is one probe trial on the 5th day (although a long-term seven-day memory trial is also commonly performed) when the animal explores the maze with all holes closed. Learning and long-term memory are quantified by the time taken to find the shelter and pokes in the wrong holes during the acquisition period, and by the time spent near the closed shelter hole in the probe trial. Typical results show a decrease in the number of errors and latency to reach the shelter during acquisition, and an above-chance proportion of time spent in the quadrant containing the closed target hole in the probe trial15.
While several variants of the BM assay have been previously described17,18,19, the paradigm we describe here has three fundamental changes from the standard assay. First, the animal is left to explore the maze and find the shelter on its own, and testing is done in the same session, shortly after the shelter has been found, during periods where the animal is engaged in exploratory behavior. Although this setting does not test long-term memory of the shelter location, it is designed to be a naturalistic scenario that mimics the exploration of novel territory, under the threat of predation. In addition, it allows testing of how animals adapt to acute changes in the environment, such as sudden changes in landscape. Second, a key aspect of our assay is that the experimenter never forces the animal in or out of the shelter, which can disorient the animal and exclude path integration20 as a viable navigation strategy21. Path integration is a navigation strategy that uses self-motion cues, such as proprioceptive and vestibular cues, arising from the integration of motor outflow, to update the current position of the animal and navigate towards a goal, which is not possible if the animal is passively moved by the experimenter. Third, we use innately aversive visual22 and auditory23 stimuli to elicit escape to shelter, which is easily distinguished from ongoing foraging behavior and allows the assessment and quantification of specific navigation strategies used during defense from imminent threats. We propose that this assay will be useful for dissecting the role of spatial memory in the selection and implementation of defensive behaviors, and more generally to the broader study of goal-directed navigation and short-term spatial memory. The protocols described here were introduced by Vale et al. in 2017, to which we refer the readers for more in depth discussion of the rationale for experiments and results.

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="775">
	<tbody>
		<tr height="21">
			<td height="21" style="height:21px;width:285px;">Infrared iluminators TV6700</td>
			<td style="width:175px;">Abus</td>
			<td style="width:149px;">-</td>
			<td style="width:167px;"></td>
		</tr>
		<tr height="21">
			<td height="21" style="height:21px;width:285px;">DLP projector Infocus IN3126</td>
			<td>Infocus</td>
			<td>0001740992-00000001</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr height="21">
			<td height="21" style="height:21px;width:285px;">Ultrasound speaker Pettersson L60</td>
			<td style="width:175px;">Pettersson Elektronik</td>
			<td style="width:149px;">-</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr height="21">
			<td height="21" style="height:21px;width:285px;">Amplifier QTX PRO240</td>
			<td style="width:175px;">QTX</td>
			<td style="width:149px;">-</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr height="21">
			<td height="21" style="height:21px;width:285px;">Soundcard Xonar D2</td>
			<td style="width:175px;">Asus</td>
			<td>90-YAA021-1UAN00Z</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr height="21">
			<td height="21" style="height:21px;width:285px;">HP Z840 desktop</td>
			<td style="width:175px;">HP</td>
			<td style="width:149px;">F5G73AV</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr height="21">
			<td height="21" style="height:21px;">100 micron drafting film</td>
			<td style="width:175px;">Xerox</td>
			<td style="width:149px;">3R98145</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr height="42">
			<td height="42" style="height:42px;width:285px;">Near infrared camera: Basler acA1300-60gmNIR</td>
			<td style="width:175px;">Basler</td>
			<td>106202</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr height="21">
			<td height="21" style="height:21px;width:285px;">National Instruments BNC-2110&#160;</td>
			<td style="width:175px;">National instruments</td>
			<td>777643-01</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr height="21">
			<td height="21" style="height:21px;width:285px;">LabVIEW 2015 64-bit</td>
			<td style="width:175px;">National instruments</td>
			<td style="width:149px;">-</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr height="63">
			<td height="63" style="height:63px;width:285px;">Custom made Barnes maze</td>
			<td style="width:175px;">MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology mechanical workshop</td>
			<td style="width:149px;">-</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
	</tbody>
</table>

a behavioral assay for investigating the role of spatial memory during instinctive defense in mice

Evolution has selected a repertoire of defensive behaviors that are essential for survival across all animal species. These behaviors are often stereotyped actions elicited in response to innately aversive sensory stimuli, but their success requires enough flexibility for adapting to different spatial environments, which can change rapidly. Here, we describe a behavioral assay to evaluate the influence of learned spatial knowledge on defensive behaviors in mice. We have adapted the widely used Barnes maze spatial memory assay to investigate how mice navigate to a shelter during escape responses to innately aversive sensory stimuli in a novel environment, and how they adapt to acute changes in the environment. This new assay is an ethological paradigm that does not require training and exploits the natural exploration patterns and navigation strategies in mice. We propose that the set of protocols described here are a powerful means of studying goal-directed behaviors and stimulus-triggered navigation, which should be of interest to both the fields of instinctive behaviors and spatial memory.

Mice exposed to auditory or visual stimuli initiated fast escape responses with short latencies between the onset of stimulation and initiation of flight. The mean latency to escape from the visual stimulus was 202 &#177; 16 ms (n = 51 responses from 26 animals) and significantly longer for auditory stimulation: 510 &#177; 61 ms (n = 36 responses from 15 animals, p&#60;0.0001 t-test between visual and auditory stimulation; Figure 2A) (step 8.1). Escape responses were accurately directed to the shelter (mean accuracy for visual stimulus: 97.2 &#177; 1.4% and 95.0 &#177; 1.4% for auditory stimulus, not significantly different between the two types of stimuli, p = 0.1655 t-test; Figure 2B) (step 8.4), and flight trajectories were close to a straight line (mean ratio of displacement to distance to shelter for visual stimulus 107.3 &#177; 1.3% and 113.9 &#177; 1.5% for auditory stimulus; Figure 2C) (step 8.3). Observing a short latency from the stimulus is important to distinguish stimulus-evoked behavior from homing runs, and the high linearity of the flight trajectory demonstrates that the escape response has the goal of reaching the shelter, and not simply moving away from the stimulus.
Stimulus presentation after the rotation of the outside part of the maze while the mouse was stationary in the center platform (range = 36&#176;-90&#176;, mean 56&#176;) successfully elicited escape responses (step 5). All mice fled towards the previous location of the shelter, with no decrease in accuracy or linearity of flight trajectory in comparison to the trials before rotation. The mean accuracy, measured in reference to the original shelter position, was 96.3 &#177; 1.3% before rotation (n = 25 responses from 8 mice) and even slightly higher after rotation (100 &#177; 0%, p = 0.009 t-test between pre and post rotation). The mean linearity in relation to the original shelter location was 109.4 &#177; 5.0% pre-rotation (25 responses from 8 mice) and 109.1 &#177; 2.1%, post-rotation (n = 8 responses from 8 mice), p = 0.957 t-test between pre and post-rotation, Figure 3A and B). These results demonstrate that proximal visual cues are not used to guide the flight to the shelter (steps 8.3-8.5).
Changing the location of the shelter after eliciting one successful escape response (step 6) resulted in mice visiting the new shelter location shortly after the change (mean time to visit the new shelter = 33.1 s, range = 4-82 s). Subsequent sequential trials of sound stimulation produced a gradual increase in the probability of escaping to the new location (44.4% on the first trial), reaching 100% across all animals by the fifth trial (n = 9 animals, Figure 3C). These experiments probe the dynamics of updating the shelter location memory to adapt to changes in the environment (step 8.6).
After a 7 min acclimatization period to the maze with no shelter (step 7), the presentation of a 5 s long visual stimulus produced freezing behavior instead of escape (freezing probability = 95.2%, mean freezing time = 7.9 &#177; 2.7 s, n =7 animals). Subsequent introduction of a shelter in the same session and the presentation of the long visual stimulus elicited escape responses reliably, showing that&#160;mice can flexibly switch defensive strategies depending on the presence of refuge (Figure 3D) (steps 8.1 and 8.7).
<img alt="Figure 1" class="xfigimg" src="/files/ftp_upload/56988/56988fig1.jpg" /> 
Figure 1: Schematic of the behavioral arena. Drawing of the main components of the behavioral arena viewed from the top (right) and from the side (left). A large fraction of the platform can be rotated, including the shelter and the attached visual cues. Dark circles in the top view are the holes to which the shelter can be attached to, which are all identical (an example shelter location is indicated). The entire arena is enclosed in a sound-dampening cabinet. <a href="/files/ftp_upload/56988/56988fig1large.jpg" target="_blank">Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.</a>
<img alt="Figure 2" class="xfigimg" src="/files/ftp_upload/56988/56988fig2.jpg" /> 
Figure 2: Escape responses are fast and accurate goal-directed behaviors. (A) Latency to escape onset from the onset of visual or auditory stimulation. (B) Accuracy of navigation to the shelter during escape, measured such that the value is 100% if the mouse runs directly to the shelter, and 10% less for each hole away from the shelter (e.g., 80% if the hole reached first was two holes away from the correct one). (C) Displacement of the mouse during escape plotted against the linear distance between the animal&#39;s initial position and the target location, showing that flight is close to linear. Box and whiskers show data from 10-90 percentile and the remaining data points are shown as circles. Red color plots are data from auditory stimulation (n = 36 responses from 15 animals) and black are from visual stimulation (n = 51 responses from 26 animals). <a href="/files/ftp_upload/56988/56988fig2large.jpg" target="_blank">Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.</a>
<img alt="Figure 3" class="xfigimg" src="/files/ftp_upload/56988/56988fig3.jpg" /> 
Figure 3: Mice do not use proximal visual cues or shelter-related cues to guide escape responses. (A) Displacement plot as in Figure 2C, for the responses pre- and post-rotation of the platform. (B) Accuracy of navigation during escape in pre- and post-rotation conditions. Post-rotation accuracy is measured in reference to the initial location of the shelter, and shows that the mice navigate back to the original shelter location instead the new position. (C) Fraction of escape responses directed towards the new shelter location plotted against stimulation number. After the 5th presentation of the stimulus, all animals escape directly towards the new shelter location (n = 9 animals). (D) Mean speed across the animals in response to visual stimulation with a shelter available (red) or absent (blue), showing escape and freezing responses, respectively. Speed has been normalized to baseline and aligned to reaction time (defined as either the beginning of a flight or freezing response, dashed line). Shaded areas show SEM. (n = 7 animals). For 2A and 2B, the box and whiskers show data from 10-90 percentile and the remaining data points are shown as circles. Red color plots are data from auditory stimulation before platform rotation (n = 25 responses from 8 animals) and blue are from responses after rotating the platform (n = 8 responses from 8 animals). <a href="/files/ftp_upload/56988/56988fig3large.jpg" target="_blank">Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.</a>

Watch this Scientific Journal Video about A Behavioral Assay for Investigating the Role of Spatial Memory During Instinctive Defense in Mice at JoVE.com

A Behavioral Assay for Investigating the Role of Spatial Memory During Instinctive Defense in Mice

This protocol describes a behavioral assay, based on the Barnes maze test, to study how instinctive defensive actions are modified by the knowledge of spatial environment.

Evolution has selected a repertoire of defensive behaviors that are essential for survival across all animal species. These behaviors are often ...

a-behavioral-assay-for-investigating-role-spatial-memory-during

Nanyang Technological University

Research

JoVE Journal

Behavior

9.4K Views.  UCL Sainsbury Wellcome Centre for Neural Circuits and Behaviour. This protocol describes a behavioral assay, based on the Barnes maze test, to study how instinctive defensive actions are modified by the knowledge of spatial environment.

Video: A Behavioral Assay for Investigating the Role of Spatial Memory During Instinctive Defense in Mice

A Procedure to Observe Context-induced Renewal of Pavlovian-conditioned Alcohol-seeking Behavior in Rats

Environmental contexts in which drugs of abuse are consumed can trigger craving, a subjective Pavlovian-conditioned response that can facilitate drug-seeking behavior and prompt relapse in abstinent drug users. We have developed a procedure to study the behavioral and neural processes that mediate the impact of context on alcohol-seeking behavior in rats. Following acclimation to the taste and pharmacological effects of 15% ethanol in the home cage, male Long-Evans rats receive Pavlovian discrimination training (PDT) in conditioning chambers. In each daily (Mon-Fri) PDT session, 16 trials each of two different 10 sec auditory conditioned stimuli occur. During one stimulus, the CS+, 0.2 ml of 15% ethanol is delivered into a fluid port for oral consumption. The second stimulus, the CS-, is not paired with ethanol. Across sessions, entries into the fluid port during the CS+ increase, whereas entries during the CS- stabilize at a lower level, indicating that a predictive association between the CS+ and ethanol is acquired. During PDT each chamber is equipped with a specific configuration of visual, olfactory and tactile contextual stimuli. Following PDT, extinction training is conducted in the same chamber that is now equipped with a different configuration of contextual stimuli. The CS+ and CS- are presented as before, but ethanol is withheld, which causes a gradual decline in port entries during the CS+. At test, rats are placed back into the PDT context and presented with the CS+ and CS- as before, but without ethanol. This manipulation triggers a robust and selective increase in the number of port entries made during the alcohol predictive CS+, with no change in responding during the CS-. This effect, referred to as context-induced renewal, illustrates the powerful capacity of contexts associated with alcohol consumption to stimulate alcohol-seeking behavior in response to Pavlovian alcohol cues.

A procedure to study the capacity of an alcohol associated environmental context to trigger the renewal of alcohol-seeking behavior in rats is described.

Environmental contexts in which drugs of abuse are consumed can trigger craving, a subjective Pavlovian-conditioned response that can facilitate ...

The Double-H Maze: A Robust Behavioral Test for Learning and Memory in Rodents

Spatial cognition research in rodents typically employs the use of maze tasks, whose attributes vary from one maze to the next. These tasks vary by their behavioral flexibility and required memory duration, the number of goals and pathways, and also the overall task complexity. A confounding feature in many of these tasks is the lack of control over the strategy employed by the rodents to reach the goal, e.g., allocentric (declarative-like) or egocentric (procedural) based strategies. The double-H maze is a novel water-escape memory task that addresses this issue, by allowing the experimenter to direct the type of strategy learned during the training period. The double-H maze is a transparent device, which consists of a central alleyway with three arms protruding on both sides, along with an escape platform submerged at the extremity of one of these arms.
Rats can be trained using an allocentric strategy by alternating the start position in the maze in an unpredictable manner (see protocol 1; &#167;4.7), thus requiring them to learn the location of the platform based on the available allothetic cues. Alternatively, an egocentric learning strategy (protocol 2; &#167;4.8) can be employed by releasing the rats from the same position during each trial, until they learn the procedural pattern required to reach the goal. This task has been proven to allow for the formation of stable memory traces.
Memory can be probed following the training period in a misleading probe trial, in which the starting position for the rats alternates. Following an egocentric learning paradigm, rats typically resort to an allocentric-based strategy, but only when their initial view on the extra-maze cues differs markedly from their original position. This task is ideally suited to explore the effects of drugs/perturbations on allocentric/egocentric memory performance, as well as the interactions between these two memory systems.

The goal of this protocol is to investigate spatial cognition in rodents. The double-H water maze is a novel test, which is particularly useful to elucidate the different components of learning, consolidation and memory, as well as the interplay of memory systems.

Spatial cognition research in rodents typically employs the use of maze tasks, whose attributes vary from one maze to the next. These tasks vary by their ...

Morris Water Maze Test: Optimization for Mouse Strain and Testing Environment

The Morris water maze (MWM) is a commonly used task to assess hippocampal-dependent spatial learning and memory in transgenic mouse models of disease, including neurocognitive disorders such as Alzheimer&#8217;s disease. However, the background strain of the mouse model used can have a substantial effect on the observed behavioral phenotype, with some strains exhibiting superior learning ability relative to others. To ensure differences between transgene negative and transgene positive mice can be detected, identification of a training procedure sensitive to the background strain is essential. Failure to tailor the MWM protocol to the background strain of the mouse model may lead to under- or over- training, thereby masking group differences in probe trials. Here, a MWM protocol tailored for use with the F1 FVB/N x 129S6 background is described. This is a frequently used background strain to study the age-dependent effects of mutant P301L tau (rTg(TauP301L)4510 mice) on the memory deficits associated with Alzheimer&#8217;s disease. Also described is a strategy to re-optimize, as dictated by the particular testing environment utilized.

This manuscript describes a Morris water maze (MWM) protocol tailored for use with a commonly used mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. The MWM is widely used in transgenic mouse models. Implementation of a procedure sensitive to the background strain of the mouse model is essential for detecting group differences.

 The Morris water maze (MWM) is a commonly used task to assess hippocampal-dependent spatial learning and memory in transgenic mouse models of disease, ...

The Rodent Psychomotor Vigilance Test (rPVT): A Method for Assessing Neurobehavioral Performance in Rats and Mice

The human Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT) is a widely used procedure for measuring changes in fatigue and sustained attention. The present article describes a rodent version of the PVT&#8212;termed the &#34;rPVT&#34;&#8212;that measures similar aspects of attention (i.e., performance accuracy, motor speed, premature responding, and lapses in attention). Data are presented that demonstrate both the short- and long-term usefulness of the rPVT when employed with laboratory rats. Rats easily learn the rPVT, and learning to perform the basic procedure takes less than two weeks of training. Once acquired, rat performances in the rPVT show a high degree of similarity to these same performance measures in the human PVT, including similarities in, lapses in attention, reaction times, vigilance decrements across session time (i.e., the human &#34;time-on-task&#34; effects), and the response-stimulus interval (RSI) effect described for humans. Thus the rPVT can be an extremely valuable tool for assessing the effects of a wide range of variables on sustained attention quite similar to human PVT performances, and thus can be useful for developing novel treatments for neurobehavioral dysfunctions.

The Rodent Psychomotor Vigilance Test rPVT: A Method for Assessing Neurobehavioral Performance in Rats and Mice

A rat version of the human Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT) is described that measures aspects of attention similar to those measured with the human PVT, including aspects of human vigilance such as performance accuracy, motor speed, premature responding, and lapses in attention.

The human Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT) is a widely used procedure for measuring changes in fatigue and sustained attention. The present article ...

Assessing Working Memory in Children: The Comprehensive Assessment Battery for Children &#8211; Working Memory (CABC-WM)

The Comprehensive Assessment Battery for Children - Working Memory (CABC-WM) is a computer-based battery designed to assess different components of working memory in young school-age children. Working memory deficits have been identified in children with language-based learning disabilities, including dyslexia1,2 and language impairment3,4, but it is not clear whether these children exhibit deficits in subcomponents of working memory, such as visuospatial or phonological working memory. The CABC-WM is administered on a desktop computer with a touchscreen interface and was specifically developed to be engaging and motivating for children. Although the long-term goal of the CABC-WM is to provide individualized working memory profiles in children, the present study focuses on the initial success and utility of the CABC-WM for measuring central executive, visuospatial, phonological loop, and binding constructs in children with typical development. Immediate next steps are to administer the CABC-WM to children with specific language impairment, dyslexia, and comorbid specific language impairment and dyslexia.

Working memory predicts a significant amount of variance for a variety of cognitive tasks, including speaking, reading, and writing. However, few tools are available to assess working memory in children. We present an innovative, computer-based battery that comprehensively assesses different components of working memory in school-age children.

The Comprehensive Assessment Battery for Children - Working Memory (CABC-WM) is a computer-based battery designed to assess different components of ...

Novel Object Recognition Test for the Investigation of Learning and Memory in Mice

The object recognition test (ORT) is a commonly used behavioral assay for the investigation of various aspects of learning and memory in mice. The ORT is fairly simple and can be completed over 3 days: habituation day, training day, and testing day. During training, the mouse is allowed to explore 2 identical objects. On test day, one of the training objects is replaced with a novel object. Because mice have an innate preference for novelty, if the mouse recognizes the familiar object, it will spend most of its time at the novel object. Due to this innate preference, there is no need for positive or negative reinforcement or long training schedules. Additionally, the ORT can also be modified for numerous applications. The retention interval can be shortened to examine short-term memory, or lengthened to probe long-term memory. Pharmacological intervention can be used at various times prior to training, after training, or prior to recall to investigate different phases of learning (i.e., acquisition, early or late consolidation, or recall). Overall, the ORT is a relatively low-stress, efficient test for memory in mice, and is appropriate for the detection of neuropsychological changes following pharmacological, biological, or genetic manipulations.

The object recognition test (ORT) is a simple and efficient assay for evaluating learning and memory in mice. The methodology is described below.

The object recognition test (ORT) is a commonly used behavioral assay for the investigation of various aspects of learning and memory in mice. The ORT is ...

The (Spatial) Memory Game: Testing the Relationship Between Spatial Language, Object Knowledge, and Spatial Cognition

The memory game paradigm is a behavioral procedure to explore the relationship between language, spatial memory, and object knowledge. Using two different versions of the paradigm, spatial language use and memory for object location are tested under different, experimentally manipulated conditions. This allows us to tease apart proposed models explaining the influence of object knowledge on spatial language (e.g., spatial demonstratives), and spatial memory, as well as understanding the parameters that affect demonstrative choice and spatial memory more broadly. Key to the development of the method was the need to collect data on language use (e.g., spatial demonstratives: &#34;this/that&#34;) and spatial memory data under strictly controlled conditions, while retaining a degree of ecological validity. The language version (section 3.1) of the memory game tests how conditions affect language use. Participants refer verbally to objects placed at different locations (e.g., using spatial demonstratives: &#34;this/that red circle&#34;). Different parameters can be experimentally manipulated: the distance from the participant, the position of a conspecific, and for example whether the participant owns, knows, or sees the object while referring to it. The same parameters can be manipulated in the memory version of the memory game (section 3.2). This version tests the effects of the different conditions on object-location memory. Following object placement, participants get 10 seconds to memorize the object&#39;s location. After the object and location cues are removed, participants verbally direct the experimenter to move a stick to indicate where the object was. The difference between the memorized and the actual location shows the direction and strength of the memory error, allowing comparisons between the influences of the respective parameters.

The Spatial Memory Game: Testing the Relationship Between Spatial Language, Object Knowledge, and Spatial Cognition

We present a protocol to explore the relationship between spatial language production, spatial memory, and object knowledge. The procedure allows experimental manipulation of, and control over, conditions of object knowledge, language at instruction, and physical location, thus teasing apart cognitive and linguistic models describing interactions between these variables.

The memory game paradigm is a behavioral procedure to explore the relationship between language, spatial memory, and object knowledge. Using two different ...

The Unpredictable Chronic Mild Stress Protocol for Inducing Anhedonia in Mice

Depression is a highly prevalent and debilitating condition, only partially addressed by current pharmacotherapies. The lack of response to treatment by many patients prompts the need to develop new therapeutic alternatives and to better understand the etiology of the disorder. Pre-clinical models with translational merits are rudimentary for this task. Here we present a protocol for the unpredictable chronic mild stress (UCMS) method in mice. In this protocol, adolescent mice are chronically exposed to interchanging unpredictable mild stressors. Resembling the pathogenesis of depression in humans, stress exposure during the sensitive period of mice adolescence instigates a depressive-like phenotype evident in adulthood. UCMS can be used for screenings of antidepressants on the variety of depressive-like behaviors and neuromolecular indices. Among the more prominent tests to assess depressive-like behavior in rodents is the sucrose preference test (SPT), which reflects anhedonia (core symptom of depression). The SPT will also be presented in this protocol. The ability of UCMS to induce anhedonia, instigate long-term behavioral deficits and enable reversal of these deficits via chronic (but not acute) treatment with antidepressants strengthens the protocol&#39;s validity compared to other animal protocols for inducing depressive-like behaviors.

Here we present the unpredictable chronic mild stress protocol in mice. This protocol induces a long-term depressive-like phenotype and enables to assess the efficacy of putative antidepressants in reversing the behavioral and neuromolecular depressive-like deficits.

Depression is a highly prevalent and debilitating condition, only partially addressed by current pharmacotherapies. The lack of response to treatment by ...

Nest Building Behavior as an Early Indicator of Behavioral Deficits in Mice

Nest building is an innate behavior in male and female rodents, even when raised in laboratory settings. As such, many researchers provide rodents synthetic and/or natural materials (such as twine, tissue, cotton, paper, and hay) as a gauge of their overall well-being and as an ancillary assessment to predict the possible decline in cognition. Typically, changes in nesting behaviors, such as failure to create a nest, indicate a change in health or welfare. In addition, nesting behavior is sensitive to many environmental and physiological challenges, as well as many genetic mutations underlying pathological disease states. The following protocol describes a nesting behavior paradigm that explores the usage of four types of nesting material. In addition, the protocol utilizes intraclass correlations to demonstrate that inter-rater reliability is higher when nests are constructed out of shredded paper compared to other common nesting materials such as cotton squares, paper twists, and soft cob bedding. The chosen methodology and statistical considerations (i.e., intraclass correlation) for this assay may be of interest for those conducting experiments assessing the quality of living of mice.&#160;

Here, we present a protocol to quantify nest building behavior in mice, which is known to be impaired in several neurological disorders and diseases. This protocol examines the utility of four materials and offers the opportunity to quantify the rater agreement in scoring, improving the validity and reliability of the assay.

Nest building is an innate behavior in male and female rodents, even when raised in laboratory settings. As such, many researchers provide rodents ...

Assessment of Memory Function in Pilocarpine-induced Epileptic Mice

Cognitive impairment is one of the most common comorbidities in temporal lobe epilepsy. To recapitulate epilepsy-associated cognitive decline in an animal model of epilepsy, we generated pilocarpine-treated chronic epileptic mice. We present a protocol for three different behavioral tests using these epileptic mice: novel object location (NL), novel object recognition (NO), and pattern separation (PS) tests to evaluate learning and memory for places, objects, and contexts, respectively. We explain how to set the behavioral apparatus and provide experimental procedures for the NL, NO, and PS tests following an open field test that measures the animals&#8217; basal locomotor activities. We also describe the technical advantages of the NL, NO, and PS tests with respect to other behavioral tests for assessing memory function in epileptic mice. Finally, we discuss possible causes and solutions for epileptic mice failing to make 30 s of good contact with the objects during the familiarization sessions, which is a critical step for successful memory tests. Thus, this protocol provides detailed information about how to assess epilepsy-associated memory impairments using mice. The NL, NO, and PS tests are simple, efficient assays that are appropriate for the evaluation of different kinds of memory in epileptic mice.

This article presents experimental procedures for assessing memory impairments in pilocarpine-induced epileptic mice. This protocol can be used to study the pathophysiologic mechanisms of epilepsy-associated cognitive decline, which is one of the most common comorbidities in epilepsy.

Cognitive impairment is one of the most common comorbidities in temporal lobe epilepsy. To recapitulate epilepsy-associated cognitive decline in an animal ...