IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0105431.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hope for the Best or Prepare for the Worst? Towards a Spatial Cognitive Bias Test for Mice

Author

Listed:
  • Vanessa Kloke
  • Rebecca S Schreiber
  • Carina Bodden
  • Julian Möllers
  • Hanna Ruhmann
  • Sylvia Kaiser
  • Klaus-Peter Lesch
  • Norbert Sachser
  • Lars Lewejohann

Abstract

Cognitive bias, the altered information processing resulting from the background emotional state of an individual, has been suggested as a promising new indicator of animal emotion. Comparable to anxious or depressed humans, animals in a putatively negative emotional state are more likely to judge an ambiguous stimulus as if it predicts a negative event, than those in positive states. The present study aimed to establish a cognitive bias test for mice based on a spatial judgment task and to apply it in a pilot study to serotonin transporter (5-HTT) knockout mice, a well-established mouse model for the study of anxiety- and depression-related behavior. In a first step, we validated that our setup can assess different expectations about the outcome of an ambiguous stimulus: mice having learned to expect something positive within a maze differed significantly in their behavior towards an unfamiliar location than animals having learned to expect something negative. In a second step, the use of spatial location as a discriminatory stimulus was confirmed by showing that mice interpret an ambiguous stimulus depending on its spatial location, with a position exactly midway between a positive and a negative reference point provoking the highest level of ambiguity. Finally, the anxiety- and depression-like phenotype of the 5-HTT knockout mouse model manifested - comparable to human conditions - in a trend for a negatively distorted interpretation of ambiguous information, albeit this effect was not statistically significant. The results suggest that the present cognitive bias test provides a useful basis to study the emotional state in mice, which may not only increase the translational value of animal models in the study of human affective disorders, but which is also a central objective of animal welfare research.

Suggested Citation

  • Vanessa Kloke & Rebecca S Schreiber & Carina Bodden & Julian Möllers & Hanna Ruhmann & Sylvia Kaiser & Klaus-Peter Lesch & Norbert Sachser & Lars Lewejohann, 2014. "Hope for the Best or Prepare for the Worst? Towards a Spatial Cognitive Bias Test for Mice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-12, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0105431
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105431
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105431
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105431&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0105431?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rafal Rygula & Helena Pluta & Piotr Popik, 2012. "Laughing Rats Are Optimistic," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-6, December.
    2. Emma J. Harding & Elizabeth S. Paul & Michael Mendl, 2004. "Cognitive bias and affective state," Nature, Nature, vol. 427(6972), pages 312-312, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marko Bračić & Lena Bohn & Viktoria Siewert & Vanessa T von Kortzfleisch & Holger Schielzeth & Sylvia Kaiser & Norbert Sachser & S Helene Richter, 2022. "Once an optimist, always an optimist? Studying cognitive judgment bias in mice," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 33(4), pages 775-788.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Neil Garrett & Tali Sharot, 2014. "How Robust Is the Optimistic Update Bias for Estimating Self-Risk and Population Base Rates?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-8, June.
    2. Claire A Hales & Emma S J Robinson & Conor J Houghton, 2016. "Diffusion Modelling Reveals the Decision Making Processes Underlying Negative Judgement Bias in Rats," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-25, March.
    3. Naïma Kasbaoui & Jonathan Cooper & Daniel S Mills & Oliver Burman, 2016. "Effects of Long-Term Exposure to an Electronic Containment System on the Behaviour and Welfare of Domestic Cats," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-20, September.
    4. Alessandro V. M. Oliveira & Bruno F. Oliveira & Moises D. Vassallo, 2024. "Airport service quality perception and flight delays: examining the influence of psychosituational latent traits of respondents in passenger satisfaction surveys," Papers 2401.02139, arXiv.org.
    5. Rafal Rygula & Helena Pluta & Piotr Popik, 2012. "Laughing Rats Are Optimistic," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-6, December.
    6. Sicong Liu & Qingcheng Fan & Shanghao Liu & Chunjiang Zhao, 2022. "DepthFormer: A High-Resolution Depth-Wise Transformer for Animal Pose Estimation," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-13, August.
    7. Melissa J Starling & Nicholas Branson & Denis Cody & Timothy R Starling & Paul D McGreevy, 2014. "Canine Sense and Sensibility: Tipping Points and Response Latency Variability as an Optimism Index in a Canine Judgement Bias Assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-15, September.
    8. Marko Bračić & Lena Bohn & Viktoria Siewert & Vanessa T von Kortzfleisch & Holger Schielzeth & Sylvia Kaiser & Norbert Sachser & S Helene Richter, 2022. "Once an optimist, always an optimist? Studying cognitive judgment bias in mice," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 33(4), pages 775-788.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0105431. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.