Literature DB >> 35469084

Determining the value of preferred goods based on consumer demand in a home-cage based test for mice.

Pia Kahnau1, Anne Jaap2, Kai Diederich2, Lorenz Gygax3, Juliane Rudeck2, Lars Lewejohann2,4.   

Abstract

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.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Consumer demand; Group housing; Home-cage; IntelliCage; Mice; Preference test

Year:  2022        PMID: 35469084     DOI: 10.3758/s13428-022-01813-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Res Methods        ISSN: 1554-351X


  17 in total

1.  Domestication and stress effects on contrafreeloading and spatial learning performance in red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus) and White Leghorn layers.

Authors:  Christina Lindqvist; Per Jensen
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2009-02-25       Impact factor: 1.777

2.  A comparison of learning and memory characteristics of young and middle-aged wild-type mice in the IntelliCage.

Authors:  Annis O Mechan; Adrian Wyss; Henry Rieger; M Hasan Mohajeri
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2009-03-10       Impact factor: 2.390

3.  Investigations into the preferences of laboratory rats for nest-boxes and nesting materials.

Authors:  C E Manser; D M Broom; P Overend; T H Morris
Journal:  Lab Anim       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 2.471

4.  The cage preferences of laboratory rats.

Authors:  E G Patterson-Kane; D N Harper; M Hunt
Journal:  Lab Anim       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 2.471

5.  Spatial cognition in a virtual reality home-cage extension for freely moving rodents.

Authors:  Ursula Kaupert; Kay Thurley; Katja Frei; Francesco Bagorda; Alexej Schatz; Gilad Tocker; Sophie Rapoport; Dori Derdikman; York Winter
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-01-11       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Automated radial 8-arm maze: A voluntary and stress-free behavior test to assess spatial learning and memory in mice.

Authors:  Jie Mei; Joel Kohler; York Winter; Claudia Spies; Matthias Endres; Stefanie Banneke; Julius Valentin Emmrich
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2019-11-10       Impact factor: 3.332

7.  Preference of laboratory rats for potentially enriching stimulus objects.

Authors:  D J Chmiel; M Noonan
Journal:  Lab Anim       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 2.471

8.  Preferences of mice, Mus musculus, for different types of running wheel.

Authors:  S Banjanin; N Mrosovsky
Journal:  Lab Anim       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.471

9.  Circadian modulation of motivation in mice.

Authors:  Julieta Acosta; Ivana L Bussi; Macarena Esquivel; Christian Höcht; Diego A Golombek; Patricia V Agostino
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2020-01-17       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  Impulse for animal welfare outside the experiment.

Authors:  Lars Lewejohann; Kerstin Schwabe; Christine Häger; Paulin Jirkof
Journal:  Lab Anim       Date:  2020-02-12       Impact factor: 2.471

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.