Reinforced variability enhances object exploration in shy and bold rats

Rigor and reproducibility in rodent behavioral research

Behavioral neuroscience research incorporates the identical high level of meticulous methodologies and exacting attention to detail as all other scientific disciplines. To achieve maximal rigor and reproducibility of findings, well-trained investigators employ a variety of established best practices. Here we explicate some of the requirements for rigorous experimental design and accurate data analysis in conducting mouse and rat behavioral tests. Novel object recognition is used as an example of a cognitive assay which has been conducted successfully with a range of methods, all based on common principles of appropriate procedures, controls, and statistics. Directors of Rodent Core facilities within Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Centers contribute key aspects of their own novel object recognition protocols, offering insights into essential similarities and less-critical differences. Literature cited in this review article will lead the interested reader to source papers that provide step-by-step protocols which illustrate optimized methods for many standard rodent behavioral assays. Adhering to best practices in behavioral neuroscience will enhance the value of animal models for the multiple goals of understanding biological mechanisms, evaluating consequences of genetic mutations, and discovering efficacious therapeutics.

Generalization of learned variability across multiple dimensions in humans

This study examined whether trained variability would generalize across dimensions of the target response. Two experiments used a computerized rectangle drawing task that required participants to click and drag a mouse cursor to create rectangles on a computer screen. In Experiment 1, one group received points when successive rectangles varied in their size, shape and location (VAR), another group were yoked to the VAR group and received points that were allocated to them using a yoking procedure (YOKE), regardless of the variability in the size, shape or location of the rectangle drawn. Variability was higher for a dimension when variability on that dimension was directly reinforced. In Experiment 2, three groups of participants received points when rectangles varied on two dimensions; each group differed in the two dimensions that required variation. Variability was again higher for the reinforced dimensions for two of the three groups. Comparison with the YOKE group showed that the variability on those dimensions where variability was not directly reinforced was affected by reinforcement for variability on the other dimensions. Specifically, the variability in Shape and Location was significantly higher when these two dimensions occurred with other dimensions where variability was reinforced (as in Experiment 2) compared to when they were not required to vary (as in the YOKE group). This suggests that, for these two groups, the reinforced variability on the other two dimensions generalized to the third dimension. Implications of this finding to our understanding of factors that promote behavioral variability are discussed.

Controlling and Predicting Unpredictable Behavior

Behaving predictably can be advantageous in some situations, but unpredictability can also be advantageous in some competitive situations like sports, games, and war. Can, however, unpredictable behavior be conditioned? If a contingency of reinforcement based upon the predictability of behavior generates unpredictable responding, is it possible to conclude that predictability is itself a reinforceable dimension of behavior? In this paper, I address these questions by examining the concept and measures of predictability and the procedures generally used to increase unpredictable responding. I discuss the hypothesis that contingencies based on response frequency shape the generalized operant "to vary" and an alternative hypothesis that such contingencies generate unpredictable responding by balancing the strength of each alternative response over time. I discuss the findings that support the balance hypothesis as well as its limitations. I conclude that the two alternative hypotheses may be complementary in explaining unpredictable responding.