Preference test

A radial arm maze allowing animals to choose between 8 variants (e.g. food) that would be placed at the end of each arm

A preference test is an experiment in which animals are allowed free access to multiple environments which differ in one or more variants. Various aspects of the animal's behaviour can be measured such as latency to approach the variants, relative consumption of variants, the number of entries and duration of time spent in different environments, or the range of activities in each of the environments. These measures can be recorded either by the experimenter or by motion detecting software.[1] Statistical testing is used to determine whether the differences are large enough in comparison to the control group or the individual animal, to conclude that preference or aversion has occurred. Strength of preference can be inferred by the magnitude of the difference in the response, but see "Advantages and disadvantages" below. Prior to testing, the animals are usually given the opportunity to explore the apparatus and variants to habituate and reduce the effects of novelty.

Preference tests can be used to test for preferences of only one characteristic of the variant, e.g. cage colour, or multiple characteristics of complex variants e.g. a choice between hamster wheel, Habitrail tunnels or additional empty space for extended locomotion.[2]

Types of test

Two variants

The simplest of preference tests offers a choice between two variants. This can be achieved using different variants at the ends of the arms of a 'T' shaped maze, or having a chamber divided in half with one variant available in one half and the other variant available in the other half. A famous example of this simple method is an investigation of the preferences of chickens for different types of wire floor in battery cages. Two types of metal mesh flooring were being used in the 1950s; one type was a large, open mesh using thick wire, the other was a smaller mesh size but the wire was considerably thinner. A prestigious committee, the Brambell Committee, conducting an investigation into farm animal welfare[3] concluded the thicker mesh should be used as this was likely to be more comfortable for the chickens. However, preference tests showed that chickens preferred the thinner wire. Photographs taken from under the cages showed that the thinner mesh offered more points of contact for the feet than the thick mesh, thereby spreading the load on the hens' feet and presumably feeling more comfortable to the birds.

Multiple variants

The number of variants that can be offered is theoretically limitless for some preference tests, e.g. light intensity, cage size, food types, however, the number is often limited by experimental practicalities, current practice (e.g. animal caging systems) or costs. Furthermore, animals usually investigate all areas of the apparatus, even those areas of minor preference, meaning that differences in behaviour become less distinct as the number of variants increases.

Variants requiring a cost

A major disadvantage of preference tests is that there is no 'cost' on the animal making a choice. Therefore, these studies do not give an indication of how essential or necessary any of the variants are to the animal. For example, if a laboratory mouse normally housed in a small cage was offered three sizes of additional space, it would almost certainly show a preference for one of the size variants, but this does not address the question of whether the mouse 'needs' that space additional to its home cage or whether it is simply wandering around the apparatus because the space is available. To investigate 'need' more elaborate tests called consumer demand studies can be performed which place a 'cost', e.g. lever pressing, weighted door, on the animal gaining access to the variants.

Uses

Preference tests have been used widely in the study of animal behaviour and motivation, e.g.-

Animal housing and husbandry
Sensory capacities
Animal welfare
Animal communication
Human pharmacology
Preferences of wild animals

Advantages and disadvantages

Advantages
Disadvantages

See also

References

  1. Cunningham, C.; Gremel, C.; Groblewski, P. (2006). "Drug-induced conditioned place preference and aversion in mice". Nature Protocols 1: 1662–1670. doi:10.1038/nprot.2006.279.
  2. Sherwin, C.M., (1998). The use and perceived importance of three resources which provide caged laboratory mice the opportunity of extended locomotion. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 55: 353-367
  3. Thorpe, W.H., (1965). The assessment of pain and distress in animals. Appendix III in report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive husbandry conditions, F.W.R.Brambell (chairman). H.M.S.O., London
  4. Sherwin, C.M.; Glen, E.F. (2003). "Cage colour preferences and effects of home-cage colour on anxiety in laboratory mice". Animal Behaviour 66: 1085–1092. doi:10.1006/anbe.2003.2286.
  5. Sherwin, C.M. and Olsson, I.A.S., (2004). Housing conditions affect self-administration of anxiolytic by laboratory mice. Animal Welfare, 13: 33-38
  6. Moinard, C. and Sherwin, C.M. (1999). Turkeys prefer fluorescent light with supplementary ultraviolet radiation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 64: 261-267
  7. Harding, E.J.; Paul, E.S; Mendl, M. (2004). "Animal Behaviour: Cognitive bias and affective state". Nature 427: 312. doi:10.1038/427312.
  8. Sherwin, C.M.; Heyes, C.M.; Nicol (2002). "Social learning influences the preferences of domestic hens for novel food". Animal Behaviour 63: 933–942. doi:10.1006/anbe.2002.2000.
  9. Levin, ED (1988). "Psychopharmacological effects in the radial-arm maze". Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 12 (2): 169–75. doi:10.1016/S0149-7634(88)80008-3. PMID 2902540.
  10. Olah G, Rózsa L (2006). "Nitrogen metabolic wastes do not influence drinking water preference in feral pigeons" (pdf). Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 52 (4): 401–406.
  11. Dawkins, M.S. (1983). "Battery hens name their price: consumer demand theory and the measurement of ethological 'needs'". Animal Behaviour 31: 1195–1205. doi:10.1016/s0003-3472(83)80026-8.
  12. Mason, G.; Cooper, J.; Clarebrough, C. (2001). "The welfare of fur-farmed mink". Nature 410: 35–36. doi:10.1038/35065157. PMID 11242031.
  13. Tordoff, M.G., Alarcon, L.K. and Lawler, M.P. (2008). Preferences of 14 rat strains for 17 taste compounds. Physiology and Behavior, 95(3) 308–332. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.06.010
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Tuesday, December 29, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.