Determining the value of preferred goods based on consumer demand in a home-cage based test for mice.
Consumer demand
Group housing
Home-cage
IntelliCage
Mice
Preference test
Journal
Behavior research methods
ISSN: 1554-3528
Titre abrégé: Behav Res Methods
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101244316
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2023
02 2023
Historique:
accepted:
14
02
2022
pubmed:
27
4
2022
medline:
23
3
2023
entrez:
26
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
From the preference of one good over another, the strength of the preference cannot automatically be inferred. While money is the common denominator to assess the value of goods in humans, it appears difficult at first glance to put a price tag on the decisions of laboratory animals. Here we used consumer demand tests to measure how much work female mice expend to obtain access to different liquids. The mice could each choose between two liquids, one of which was free. The amount of work required to access the other liquid, by contrast, increased daily. In this way, the value of the liquid can be determined from a mouse's microeconomic perspective. The unique feature is that our test was carried out in a home-cage based setup. The mice lived in a group but could individually access the test-cage, which was connected to the home-cage via a gate. Thereby the mice were able to perform their task undisturbed by group members and on a self-chosen schedule with minimal influence by the experimenter. Our results show that the maximum number of nosepokes depends on the liquids presented. Mice worked incredibly hard for access to water while a bitter-tasting solution was offered for free whereas they made less nosepokes for sweetened liquids while water was offered for free. The results demonstrate that it is possible to perform automated and home-cage based consumer demand tests in order to ask the mice not only what they like best but also how strong their preference is.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35469084
doi: 10.3758/s13428-022-01813-8
pii: 10.3758/s13428-022-01813-8
pmc: PMC10027648
doi:
Substances chimiques
Water
059QF0KO0R
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
751-766Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Acosta, J., Bussi, I. L., Esquivel, M., Höcht, C., Golombek, D. A., & Agostino, P. V. (2020). Circadian modulation of motivation in mice. Behavioural Brain Research, 382(January), 112471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2020.112471
doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2020.112471
pubmed: 31958519
Ago, A., Gonda, T., Takechi, M., Takeuchi, T., & Kawakami, K. (2002). Preferences for paper bedding material of the laboratory mice. Experimental Animals, 51(2), 157–161.
doi: 10.1538/expanim.51.157
pubmed: 12012724
Banjanin, S., & Mrosovsky, N. (2000). Preferences of mice, Mus Musculus, for different types of running wheel. Laboratory Animals, 34(3), 313–318. https://doi.org/10.1258/002367700780384681
doi: 10.1258/002367700780384681
pubmed: 11037127
Bates, D., Machler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using {lme4}. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Canty, A., & Ripley, B. D. (2021). boot: Bootstrap R (S-plus) function. R Package. Version 1.3–28.
Chmiel, D. J., & Noonan, M. (1996). Preference of laboratory rats for potentially enriching stimulus objects. Laboratory Animals, 30(2), 97–101. https://doi.org/10.1258/002367796780865790
doi: 10.1258/002367796780865790
pubmed: 8783168
Cooper, J. J. (2004). Consumer demand under commercial husbandry conditions: Practical advice on measuring Behavioural priorities in captive animals. Animal Welfare 13(SUPPL.):47–56.
Davison, A. C., & Hinkley, D. V. (1997). Bootstrap methods and their applications. Cambridge University Press.
doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511802843
Dawkins, M. S. (1983). Battery Hens Name Their Price: Consumer Demand Theory and the Measurement of Ethological ‘Needs’. Animal Behaviour, 31(4), 1195–1205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(83)80026-8
doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(83)80026-8
Dawkins, M. S. (1988). Behavioural deprivation: A central problem in animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 20(3–4), 209–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(88)90047-0
doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(88)90047-0
Dawkins, M. S. (1990). From and animals point of view - motivation, fitness and animal welfare. Behavioral and Brain Science, 13, 1–61.
doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00077104
Endo, T., Maekawa, F., Võikar, V., Haijima, A., Uemura, Y., Zhang, Y., ..., Kakeyama, M. (2011). Automated test of behavioral flexibility in mice using a behavioral sequencing task in IntelliCage. Behavioural Brain Research, 221(1), 172–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2011.02.037
Freymann, J., Tsai, P. P., Stelzer, H., & Hackbarth, H. (2017). The impact of bedding volumes on laboratory mice. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 186, 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.11.004
doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2016.11.004
Galsworthy, M. J., Amrein, I., Kuptsov, P. A., Poletaeva, I. I., Zinn, P., Rau, A., ..., Lipp, H. P. (2005). A comparison of wild-caught wood mice and Bank voles in the IntelliCage: Assessing exploration, daily activity patterns and place learning paradigms. Behavioural Brain Research, 157(2), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2004.06.021
Gygax, L. (2017). Wanting, liking and welfare: The role of affective states in proximate control of behaviour in vertebrates. Ethology, 123(10), 689–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.12655
doi: 10.1111/eth.12655
Habedank, A., Kahnau, P., Diederich, K., & Lewejohann, L. (2018). Severity assessment from an Animal’s point of view. Berliner Und Munchener Tierarztliche Wochenschrift, 131(7–8), 304–320. https://doi.org/10.2376/0005-9366-18007
doi: 10.2376/0005-9366-18007
Habedank, A., Urmersbach, B., Kahnau, P., & Lewejohann, L. (2021). O mouse, where art thou? The mouse position surveillance system (MoPSS)—An RFID-based tracking system. Behavior Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01593-7
Jensen, G. D. (1963). Preference for Bar pressing over ‘freeloading’ as a function of number of rewarded presses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(5), 451–454.
doi: 10.1037/h0049174
pubmed: 13957621
Jensen, P., Schütz, K., & Lindqvist, C. (2002). Red jungle fowl have more Contrafreeloading than white Leghorn layers: Effect of food deprivation and consequences for information gain. Behaviour, 139(9), 1195–1209.
doi: 10.1163/15685390260437335
Kahnau, P., Guenther, A., Boon, M. N., Terzenbach, J. D., Hanitzsch, E., Lewejohann, L., & Brust, V. (2021). Lifetime observation of cognition and physiological parameters in male mice. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 15(September). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2021.709775
Kassambara, A., Kosinski, M., & Biecek, P. (2020). Survminer: Drawing survival curves using ‘Ggplot2’. R package version 0.4.8.
Kaupert, U., Thurley, K., Frei, K., Bagorda, F., Schatz, A., Tocker, G., Rapoport, S., Derdikman, D., & Winter, Y. (2017). Spatial cognition in a virtual reality home-cage extension for freely moving rodents. Journal of Neurophysiology, 117(4), 1736–1748. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00630.2016
doi: 10.1152/jn.00630.2016
pubmed: 28077665
pmcid: 5384973
Kirkden, R. D., & Pajor, E. A. (2006). Using preference, motivation and aversion tests to ask scientific questions about animals’ feelings. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 100(1–2), 29–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.009
doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.009
Kirkden, R. D., Edwards, J. S. S., & Broom, D. M. (2003). A theoretical comparison of the consumer surplus and the elasticities of demand as measures of motivational strength. Animal Behaviour, 65(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2002.2035
doi: 10.1006/anbe.2002.2035
Krackow, S., Vannoni, E., Codita, A., Mohammed, A. H., Cirulli, F., Branchi, I., ..., Lipp, H. P. (2010). Consistent behavioral phenotype differences between inbred mouse strains in the IntelliCage. Genes, Brain and Behavior, 9(7), 722–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-183X.2010.00606.x
Krohn, T. C., Sørensen, D. B., Ottesen, J. L., & Hansen, A. K. (2006). The effects of individual housing on mice and rats: A review. Animal Welfare, 15(4), 343–352.
doi: 10.1017/S0962728600030669
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). ImerTest Package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
Ladewig, J., Sørensen, D. B., Nielsen, P. P., & Matthews, L. R. (2002). The quantitative measurement of motivation: Generation of demand functions under open versus closed economies. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 79(4), 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00156-9
doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00156-9
Lea, S. E. (1978). The psychology and economics of demand. Psychological Bulletin, 85(3), 441–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.85.3.441
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.85.3.441
Lewejohann, L., & Sachser, N. (2000). Evaluation of Di Erent housing conditions for male laboratory mice by means of preference tests. KTBL Schrift., 170–177.
Lewejohann, L., Schwabe, K., Häger, C., & Jirkof, P. (2020). Impulse for animal welfare outside the experiment. Laboratory Animals, 54(2), 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023677219891754
doi: 10.1177/0023677219891754
pubmed: 32050843
pmcid: 7160751
Lindqvist, C., & Jensen, P. (2009). Domestication and stress effects on Contrafreeloading and spatial learning performance in red jungle fowl (Gallus Gallus) and white Leghorn layers. Behavioural Processes, 81(1), 80–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2009.02.005
doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2009.02.005
pubmed: 19429200
Manouze, H., Ghestem, A., Poillerat, V., Bennis, M., Ba-M’hamed, S., Benoliel, J. J., ..., Bernard, C. (2019). Effects of single cage housing on stress, cognitive, and seizure parameters in the rat and mouse pilocarpine models of epilepsy. ENeuro, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0179-18.2019
Manser, C. E., Broom, D. M., Overend, P., & Morris, T. H. (1998). Investigations into the preferences of laboratory rats for Nest-boxes and nesting materials. Laboratory Animals, 32(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1258/002367798780559365
doi: 10.1258/002367798780559365
pubmed: 9481691
Mechan, A. O., Wyss, A., Rieger, H., & Hasan Mohajeri, M. (2009). A comparison of learning and memory characteristics of young and middle-aged wild-type mice in the IntelliCage. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 180(1), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2009.02.018
doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2009.02.018
pubmed: 19427528
Mei, J., Kohler, J., Winter, Y., Spies, C., Endres, M., Banneke, S., & Emmrich, J. V. (2020). Automated radial 8-arm maze: A voluntary and stress-free behavior test to assess spatial learning and memory in mice. Behavioural Brain Research, 381(November), 112352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2019.112352
doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2019.112352
pubmed: 31722240
Patterson-Kane, E. G., Harper, D. N., & Hunt, M. (2001). The cage preferences of laboratory rats. Laboratory Animals, 35(1), 74–79. https://doi.org/10.1258/0023677011911390
doi: 10.1258/0023677011911390
pubmed: 11201290
Pernold, K., Iannello, F., Low, B. E., Rigamonti, M., Rosati, G., Scavizzi, F., ..., Ulfhake, B. (2019). Towards large scale automated cage monitoring - diurnal rhythm and impact of interventions on in-cage activity of C57BL/6J mice recorded 24/7 with a non-disrupting capacitive-based technique. PLoS One, 14(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211063
Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D., & R Core Team. (2020). nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package. Version 3.1–150. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
Richardson, C. A. (2012). Automated Homecage Behavioural analysis and the implementation of the three Rs in research involving mice. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals : ATLA, 40(5). https://doi.org/10.1177/026119291204000513
Rivalan, M., Munawar, H., Fuchs, A., & Winter, Y. (2017). An automated, experimenter-free method for the standardised, operant cognitive testing of rats. PLoS One, 12(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169476
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169476
Rutter, S. M., & Duncan, I. J. H. (1992). Measuring aversion in domestic fowl using passive avoidance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 33(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(05)80084-X
doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(05)80084-X
Sarna, J. R., Dyck, R. H., & Whishaw, I. Q. (2000). The Dalila effect: C57BL6 mice barber whiskers by plucking. Behavioural Brain Research, 108(1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4328(99)00137-0
doi: 10.1016/S0166-4328(99)00137-0
pubmed: 10680755
Sherwin, C. M. (1998). The use and perceived importance of three resources which provide caged laboratory mice the opportunity for extended locomotion. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 55(3–4), 353–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00049-X
doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00049-X
Sherwin, C. M. (2003). Social context affects the motivation of laboratory mice, Mus Musculus, to gain access to resources. Animal Behaviour, 66(4), 649–655. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2003.2239
doi: 10.1006/anbe.2003.2239
Sherwin, C. M. (2004). The motivation of group-housed laboratory mice, Mus Musculus, for additional space. Animal Behaviour, 67(4), 711–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.08.018
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.08.018
Sherwin, C. M. (2007). The motivation of group-housed laboratory mice to leave an enriched laboratory cage. Animal Behaviour, 73(1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.04.008
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.04.008
Sherwin, C. M., & Nicol, C. J. (1996). Reorganization of behaviour in laboratory mice, Mus Musculus, with varying cost of access to resources. Animal Behaviour, 51(5), 1087–1093. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0110
doi: 10.1006/anbe.1996.0110
Sherwin, C. M., & Nicol, C. J. (1997). Behavioural demand functions of caged laboratory mice for additional space. Animal Behaviour, 53(1), 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0278
doi: 10.1006/anbe.1996.0278
Sørensen, D. B., Ladewig, J., Ersbøll, A. K., & Matthews, L. (2004). Using the cross point of demand functions to assess animal priorities. Animal Behaviour, 68(4), 949–955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.12.017
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.12.017
Timberlake, W. (1984). A temporal limit on the effect of future food on current performance in an analogue of foraging and welfare. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41(2), 117–124. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1984.41-117
doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.41-117
pubmed: 16812361
pmcid: 1348025
Van De Weerd, H. A., Van Loo, Van Zutphen, Koolhaas, J. M., & Baumans, V. (1998). Strength of preference for nesting material as environmental enrichment for laboratory mice. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 55(3–4), 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00043-9
doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00043-9
Van Loo, P. L. P., Van De Weerd, Van Zutphen, & Baumans, V. (2004). Preference for social contact versus environmental enrichment in male laboratory mice. Laboratory Animals, 38(2), 178–188. https://doi.org/10.1258/002367704322968867
doi: 10.1258/002367704322968867
pubmed: 15070458
Van Loo, P. L. P., Blom, H. J. M., Meijer, M. K., & Baumans, V. (2005). Assessment of the use of two commercially available environmental enrichments by laboratory mice by preference testing. Laboratory Animals, 39(1), 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1258/0023677052886501
doi: 10.1258/0023677052886501
pubmed: 15703125
Voikar, V., & Gaburro, S. (2020). Three pillars of automated home-cage phenotyping of mice: Novel findings, refinement, and reproducibility based on literature and experience. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 14(October), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2020.575434
doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2020.575434
Voikar, V., Krackow, S., Lipp, H. P., Rau, A., Colacicco, G., & Wolfer, D. P. (2018). Automated dissection of permanent effects of hippocampal or prefrontal lesions on performance at spatial, working memory and circadian timing tasks of C57BL/6 mice in IntelliCage. Behavioural Brain Research, 352, 8–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2017.08.048
doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2017.08.048
pubmed: 28927717
pmcid: 6102415
Warburton, H., & Mason, G. (2003). Is out of sight out of mind? The effects of resource cues on motivation in mink, Mustela Vison. Animal Behaviour, 65(4), 755–762. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2003.2097
doi: 10.1006/anbe.2003.2097
Warburton, H. J., & Nicol, C. J. (1998). Position of operant costs affects visits to resources by laboratory mice, Mus Musculus. Animal Behaviour, 55(5), 1325–1333. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1997.0679
doi: 10.1006/anbe.1997.0679
pubmed: 9632515
Wickham, H. (2016). Ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org
Winter, Y., & Schaefers, A. T. U. (2011). A sorting system with automated gates permits individual operant experiments with mice from a social home cage. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 196(2), 276–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2011.01.017
doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2011.01.017
pubmed: 21256865