Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Use of an Automated Mouse Touchscreen Platform for Quantification of Cognitive Deficits After Central Nervous System Injury

  • Protocol
  • First Online:
Neural Repair

Part of the book series: Methods in Molecular Biology ((MIMB,volume 2616))

Abstract

Analyzing cognitive performance is an important aspect of assessing physiological deficits after stroke or other central nervous system (CNS) injuries in both humans and in basic science animal models. Cognitive testing on an automated touchscreen operant platform began in humans but is now increasingly popular in preclinical studies as it enables testing in many cognitive domains in a highly reproducible way while minimizing stress to the laboratory animal. Here, we describe the step-by-step setup and application of four operant touchscreen tests used on adult mice. In brief, mice are trained to touch a graphical image on a lit screen and initiate subsequent trials for a reward. Following initial training, mice can be tested on tasks that probe performance in many cognitive domains and thus infer the integrity of brain circuits and regions. There are already many outstanding published protocols on touchscreen cognitive testing. This chapter is designed to add to the literature in two specific ways. First, this chapter provides in a single location practical, behind-the-scenes tips for setup and testing of mice in four touchscreen tasks that are useful to assess in CNS injury models: Paired Associates Learning (PAL), a task of episodic, associative (object-location) memory; Location Discrimination Reversal (LDR), a test for mnemonic discrimination (also called behavioral pattern separation) and cognitive flexibility; Autoshaping (AUTO), a test of Pavlovian or classical conditioning; and Extinction (EXT), tasks of stimulus-response and response inhibition, respectively. Second, this chapter summarizes issues to consider when performing touchscreen tests in mouse models of CNS injury. Quantifying gross and fine aspects of cognitive function is essential to improved treatment for brain dysfunction after stroke or CNS injury as well as other brain diseases, and touchscreen testing provides a sensitive, reliable, and robust way to achieve this.

Katherine M. Cotter, Grace L. Bancroft, and Harley A. Haas shared first-authorship for this chapter

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Protocol
USD 49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Anonymous Bussey-Saksida mouse touch screen chamber package

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anonymous Specifications: Minimum Computer System Requirement

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anonymous Universal Earpunch Mouse Numbering System

    Google Scholar 

  4. Arulsamy A, Corrigan F, Collins-Praino LE (2019) Age, but not severity of injury, mediates decline in executive function: validation of the rodent touchscreen paradigm for preclinical models of traumatic brain injury. Behav Brain Res 368:111912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bartko SJ, Vendrell I, Saksida LM et al (2011) A computer-automated touchscreen paired-associates learning (PAL) task for mice: impairments following administration of scopolamine or dicyclomine and improvements following donepezil. Psychopharmacology 214:537–548

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Basso DM (2004) Behavioral testing after spinal cord injury: congruities, complexities, and controversies. J Neurotrauma 21:395–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Belarde JA, Chen CW, Rafikian E et al (2021) Optimizing touchscreen measures of rodent cognition by eliminating image bias. bioRxiv

    Google Scholar 

  8. Beltz AM, Beery AK, Becker JB (2019) Analysis of sex differences in pre-clinical and clinical data sets. Neuropsychopharmacology 44:2155–2158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Benevento M, Oomen CA, Horner AE et al (2017) Haploinsufficiency of EHMT1 improves pattern separation and increases hippocampal cell proliferation. Sci Rep 7:40284

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Beraldo FH, Palmer D, Memar S et al (2019) MouseBytes, an open-access high-throughput pipeline and database for rodent touchscreen-based cognitive assessment. Elife 8:e49630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bharmal AV, Kent BA, Bussey TJ et al (2015) Performance of transgenic TgTau-P301L mice in a 5-choice serial reaction time task (5-CSRTT) as a model of Alzheimer’s disease. Psychiatr Danub 27(Suppl 1):S515–S525

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bouton ME (2002) Context, ambiguity, and unlearning: sources of relapse after behavioral extinction. Biol Psychiatry 52:976–986

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bouton ME, Winterbauer NE, Todd TP (2012) Relapse processes after the extinction of instrumental learning: renewal, resurgence, and reacquisition. Behav Process 90:130–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brigman JL, Feyder M, Saksida LM et al (2008) Impaired discrimination learning in mice lacking the NMDA receptor NR2A subunit. Learn Mem 15:50–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Broschard MB, Kim J, Love BC et al (2021) Category learning in rodents using touchscreen-based tasks. Genes Brain Behav 20:e12665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Burn CC, Mazlan NHB, Chancellor N et al (2021) The pen is milder than the blade: identification marking mice using ink on the tail appears more humane than ear-punching even with local anaesthetic. Animals (Basel) 11:1664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Buscher N, Van Dorsselaer P, Steckler T et al (2017) Evaluating aged mice in three touchscreen tests that differ in visual demands: impaired cognitive function and impaired visual abilities. Behav Brain Res 333:142–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bussey TJ, Holmes A, Lyon L et al (2012) New translational assays for preclinical modelling of cognition in schizophrenia: the touchscreen testing method for mice and rats. Neuropharmacology 62:1191–1203

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bussey TJ, Muir JL, Robbins TW (1994) A novel automated touchscreen procedure for assessing learning in the rat using computer graphic stimuli. Neurosci Res Commun 15:103–110

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cardinal RN, Aitken MRF (2010) Whisker: a client-server high-performance multimedia research control system. Behav Res Methods 42:1059–1071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Carroll ME, Lynch WJ (2016) How to study sex differences in addiction using animal models. Addict Biol 21:1007–1029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Chow WZ, Ong LK, Kluge MG et al (2020) Similar cognitive deficits in mice and humans in the chronic phase post-stroke identified using the touchscreen-based paired-associate learning task. Sci Rep 10:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chow WZ, Ong LK, Kluge MG et al (2020) Similar cognitive deficits in mice and humans in the chronic phase post-stroke identified using the touchscreen-based paired-associate learning task. Sci Rep 10:19545

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Christian KM, Ming G-L, Song H (2020) Adult neurogenesis and the dentate gyrus: predicting function from form. Behav Brain Res 379:112346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chudasama Y, Robbins TW (2003) Dissociable contributions of the orbitofrontal and infralimbic cortex to pavlovian autoshaping and discrimination reversal learning: further evidence for the functional heterogeneity of the rodent frontal cortex. J Neurosci 23:8771–8780

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Delotterie D, Mathis C, Cassel J-C et al (2014) Optimization of touchscreen-based behavioral paradigms in mice: implications for building a battery of tasks taxing learning and memory functions. PLoS One 9:e100817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Doostdar N, Airey J, Radulescu CI et al (2021) Multi-scale network imaging in a mouse model of amyloidosis. Cell Calcium 95:102365

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Dumont JR, Salewski R, Beraldo F (2020) Critical mass: the rise of a touchscreen technology community for rodent cognitive testing. Genes Brain Behav 20:e12650

    Google Scholar 

  29. Fouad K, Ng C, Basso DM (2020) Behavioral testing in animal models of spinal cord injury. Exp Neurol 333:113410

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Fujimoto ST, Longhi L, Saatman KE et al (2004) Motor and cognitive function evaluation following experimental traumatic brain injury. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 28:365–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gilbert PE, Holden HM, Sheppard DP et al (2016) Pattern separation: a key processing deficit associated with aging? In: Jackson PA, Chiba AA, Berman RF, Ragozzino ME (eds) The neurobiological basis of memory: a system, attribute, and process analysis. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 115–135

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Graf R, Longo JL, Hughes ZA (2018) The location discrimination reversal task in mice is sensitive to deficits in performance caused by aging, pharmacological and other challenges. J Psychopharmacol 32:1027–1036

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Graybeal C, Bachu M, Mozhui K et al (2014) Strains and stressors: an analysis of touchscreen learning in genetically diverse mouse strains. PLoS One 9:e87745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Harb MR, Sousa N, Zihl J et al (2014) Reward components of feeding behavior are preserved during mouse aging. Front Aging Neurosci 6:242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Heath CJ, O’callaghan C, Mason SL et al (2019) A touchscreen motivation assessment evaluated in Huntington’s disease patients and R6/1 model mice. Front Neurol 10:858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Heath CJ, Phillips BU, Bussey TJ et al (2016) Measuring motivation and reward-related decision making in the rodent operant touchscreen system. Curr Protoc Neurosci 74:8–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Horner AE, Heath CJ, Hvoslef-Eide M et al (2013) The touchscreen operant platform for testing learning and memory in rats and mice. Nat Protoc 8:1961–1984

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Houlton J, Barwick D, Clarkson AN (2021) Frontal cortex stroke-induced impairment in spatial working memory on the trial-unique nonmatching-to-location task in mice. Neurobiolof Learn Mem 177:107355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Houlton J, Zhou LYY, Barwick D et al (2019) Stroke induces a BDNF-dependent improvement in cognitive flexibility in aged mice. Neural Plast 2019:1460890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hvoslef-Eide M, Nilsson SRO, Saksida LM et al (2016) Cognitive translation using the rodent touchscreen testing approach. In: Robbins TW, Sahakian BJ (eds) Translational neuropsychopharmacology. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 423–447

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hvoslef-Eide M, Oomen CA (2016) Adult neurogenesis and pattern separation in rodents: a critical evaluation of data, tasks and interpretation. Front Biol 11:168–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Inglis JK (1980) Introduction to laboratory animal science and technology. Pergamon Press

    Google Scholar 

  43. Insidescientific (2016) Using touchscreen operant systems to study cognitive behaviors in rodents. In:Youtube, p 3741 sec

    Google Scholar 

  44. Janickova H, Kljakic O, Robbins TW et al (2021) Evaluating sequential response learning in the rodent operant touchscreen system. Curr Protoc 1:e268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Jobson DD, Hase Y, Clarkson AN et al (2021) The role of the medial prefrontal cortex in cognition, ageing and dementia. Brain Commun 3:fcab125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Jones NC, Cardamone L, Williams JP et al (2008) Experimental traumatic brain injury induces a pervasive hyperanxious phenotype in rats. J Neurotrauma 25:1367–1374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kangas BD, Bergman J (2017) Touchscreen technology in the study of cognition-related behavior. Behav Pharmacol 28:623–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kazanis I (2005) CNS injury research; reviewing the last decade: methodological errors and a proposal for a new strategy. Brain Res Brain Res Rev 50:377–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kent BA, Heath CJ, Kim CH et al (2018) Longitudinal evaluation of Tau-P301L transgenic mice reveals no cognitive impairments at 17 months of age. Brain Behav 8:e00896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kesner RP, Lee I, Gilbert P (2004) A behavioral assessment of hippocampal function based on a subregional analysis. Rev Neurosci 15:333–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kesner RP, Rolls ET (2015) A computational theory of hippocampal function, and tests of the theory: new developments. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 48:92–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kim CH, Heath CJ, Kent BA et al (2015) The role of the dorsal hippocampus in two versions of the touchscreen automated paired associates learning (PAL) task for mice. Psychopharmacology 232:3899–3910

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Kim EW, Phillips BU, Heath CJ et al (2017) Optimizing reproducibility of operant testing through reinforcer standardization: identification of key nutritional constituents determining reward strength in touchscreens. Mol Brain 10:31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Kim M, Kwak C, Yu N-K et al (2016) Optimization of the touchscreen paired-associate learning (PAL) task for mice and its dorsal hippocampal dependency. Anim Cells Syst 20:229–236

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Krakenberg V, Wewer M, Palme R et al (2021) Regular touchscreen training affects faecal corticosterone metabolites and anxiety-like behaviour in mice. Behav Brain Res 401:113080

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Lacar B, Parylak SL, Vadodaria KC et al (2014) Increasing the resolution of the adult neurogenesis picture. F1000Prime Rep 6:8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Lafayette Instrument Company I (2022) Bussey-Saksida Touch Screen – Standard Tasks and Bibliography

    Google Scholar 

  58. Levine DA, Galecki AT, Langa KM et al (2015) Trajectory of cognitive decline after incident stroke. JAMA 314:41

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Lim J, Kim E, Noh HJ et al (2019) Assessment of mGluR5 KO mice under conditions of low stress using a rodent touchscreen apparatus reveals impaired behavioural flexibility driven by perseverative responses. Mol Brain 12:37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Lopez-Cruz L, Bussey TJ, Saksida LM et al (2021) Using touchscreen-delivered cognitive assessments to address the principles of the 3Rs in behavioral sciences. Lab Anim 50:174–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Mallien AS, Palme R, Richetto J et al (2016) Daily exposure to a touchscreen-paradigm and associated food restriction evokes an increase in adrenocortical and neural activity in mice. Horm Behav 81:97–105

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Mar AC, Horner AE, Nilsson SRO et al (2013) The touchscreen operant platform for assessing executive function in rats and mice. Nat Protoc 8:1985–2005

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Mccarthy MM, Woolley CS, Arnold AP (2017) Incorporating sex as a biological variable in neuroscience: what do we gain. Nat Rev Neurosci 18:707

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Mcquail JA, Dunn AR, Stern Y et al (2020) Cognitive reserve in model systems for mechanistic discovery: the importance of longitudinal studies. Front Aging Neurosci 12:607685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Mctighe SM, Mar AC, Romberg C et al (2009) A new touchscreen test of pattern separation: effect of hippocampal lesions. Neuroreport 20:881–885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Morton AJ, Skillings E, Bussey TJ et al (2006) Measuring cognitive deficits in disabled mice using an automated interactive touchscreen system. Nat Methods 3:767–767

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Muthukumar S, Mehrotra K, Fouda M et al (2022) Prenatal and postnatal insults differentially contribute to executive function and cognition: utilizing touchscreen technology for perinatal brain injury research. Exp Neurol 354:114104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Nagahara AH, Bernot T, Tuszynski MH (2010) Age-related cognitive deficits in rhesus monkeys mirror human deficits on an automated test battery. Neurobiol Aging 31:1020–1031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Nichols JN, Hagan KL, Floyd CL (2017) Evaluation of touchscreen chambers to assess cognition in adult mice: effect of training and mild traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma 34:2481–2494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Nilsson SRO, Celada P, Fejgin K et al (2016) A mouse model of the 15q13.3 microdeletion syndrome shows prefrontal neurophysiological dysfunctions and attentional impairment. Psychopharmacology 233:2151–2163

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Nithianantharajah J, Komiyama NH, Mckechanie A et al (2013) Synaptic scaffold evolution generated components of vertebrate cognitive complexity. Nat Neurosci 16:16–24

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. O’brien KR, Brait VH, Jackman KA et al (2020) Capturing longitudinal impacts on cognition following stroke in rodent models using touchscreen testing. Alzheimer’s Dement 16:e044156

    Google Scholar 

  73. O’leary JD, O’leary OF, Cryan JF et al (2018) A low-cost touchscreen operant chamber using a Raspberry Pi™. Behav Res Methods 50:2523–2530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. O’sullivan MJ, Oestreich LKL, Wright P et al (2022) Cholinergic and hippocampal systems facilitate cross-domain cognitive recovery after stroke. Brain 145:1698–1710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Ong LK, Chow WZ, Tebay C et al (2018) Growth hormone improves cognitive function after experimental stroke. Stroke 49:1257–1266

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Oomen CA, Hvoslef-Eide M, Heath CJ et al (2013) The touchscreen operant platform for testing working memory and pattern separation in rats and mice. Nat Protoc 8:2006–2021

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Palmer D, Dumont JR, Dexter TD et al (2021) Touchscreen cognitive testing: cross-species translation and co-clinical trials in neurodegenerative and neuropsychiatric disease. Neurobiol Learn Mem 182:107443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Phillips BU, Heath CJ, Ossowska Z et al (2017) Optimisation of cognitive performance in rodent operant (touchscreen) testing: evaluation and effects of reinforcer strength. Learn Behav 45:252–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Phillips BU, Lopez-Cruz L, Hailwood J et al (2018) Translational approaches to evaluating motivation in laboratory rodents: conventional and touchscreen-based procedures. Curr Opin Behav Sci 22:21–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Prendergast BJ, Onishi KG, Zucker I (2014) Female mice liberated for inclusion in neuroscience and biomedical research. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 40:1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Remmelink E, Chau U, Smit AB et al (2017) A one-week 5-choice serial reaction time task to measure impulsivity and attention in adult and adolescent mice. Sci Rep 7:42519

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Rivalan M, Munawar H, Fuchs A et al (2017) An automated, experimenter-free method for the standardised, operant cognitive testing of rats. PLoS One 12:e0169476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Rivalan M, Munawar H, Fuchs A et al (2017) Correction: an automated, experimenter-free method for the standardised, operant cognitive testing of rats. PLoS One 12:e0176807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Romberg C, Bussey TJ, Saksida LM (2013) Paying more attention to attention: towards more comprehensive cognitive translation using mouse models of Alzheimer’s disease. Brain Res Bull 92:49–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Saifullah MB, Komine O, Dong Y et al (2020) Touchscreen-based location discrimination and paired associate learning tasks detect cognitive impairment at an early stage in an App knock-in mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. Mol Brain 13:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Sanchez-Bezanilla S, Hood RJ, Collins-Praino LE et al (2021) More than motor impairment: a spatiotemporal analysis of cognitive impairment and associated neuropathological changes following cortical photothrombotic stroke. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 41:2439–2455

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Schallert T (2006) Behavioral tests for preclinical intervention assessment. NeuroRx 3:497–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Semple B, Noble-Haeusslein L (2016) Behavioral testing after experimental traumatic brain injury. In: Cox CS (ed) Cellular therapy for neurological injury. CRC Press, pp 167–191

    Google Scholar 

  89. Shansky RM (2019) Are hormones a “female problem” for animal research? Science 364:825–826

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Shansky RM, Murphy AZ (2021) Considering sex as a biological variable will require a global shift in science culture. Nat Neurosci 24:457–464

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Shepherd A, Tyebji S, Hannan AJ et al (2016) Translational assays for assessment of cognition in rodent models of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. J Mol Neurosci 60:371–382

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Siegel A, Bianchi DW, Guedj F (2020) Translating the human CANTAB touchscreen based tasks to evaluate learning and memory in mouse models of Down syndrome. bioRxiv

    Google Scholar 

  93. Soares FC, De Oliveira TCG, De Macedo LDED et al (2015) CANTAB object recognition and language tests to detect aging cognitive decline: an exploratory comparative study. Clin Interv Aging 10:37–48

    Google Scholar 

  94. Soler I, Yun S, Reynolds RP et al (2021) Multi-domain touchscreen-based cognitive assessment of C57BL/6J female mice shows whole-body exposure to 56Fe particle space radiation in maturity improves discrimination learning yet impairs stimulus-response rule-based habit learning. Front Behav Neurosci 15:722780

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Stark SM, Kirwan CB, Stark CEL (2019) Mnemonic similarity task: a tool for assessing hippocampal integrity. Trends Cogn Sci 23:938–951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Sullivan JA, Dumont JR, Memar S et al (2021) New frontiers in translational research: touchscreens, open science, and the mouse translational research accelerator platform. Genes Brain Behav 20:e12705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Swan AA, Clutton JE, Chary PK et al (2014) Characterization of the role of adult neurogenesis in touch-screen discrimination learning. Hippocampus 24:1581–1591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Talpos JC, Winters BD, Dias R et al (2009) A novel touchscreen-automated paired-associate learning (PAL) task sensitive to pharmacological manipulation of the hippocampus: a translational rodent model of cognitive impairments in neurodegenerative disease. Psychopharmacology 205:157–168

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Toegel F, Toegel C, Perone M (2021) Design and evaluation of a touchscreen apparatus for operant research with pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav 116:249–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Tucker LB, Burke JF, Fu AH et al (2017) Neuropsychiatric symptom modeling in male and female C57BL/6J mice after experimental traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma 34:890–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Van Den Boom BJG, Mooij AH, Misevičiūtė I et al (2019) Behavioral flexibility in a mouse model for obsessive-compulsive disorder: impaired Pavlovian reversal learning in SAPAP3 mutants. Genes Brain Behav 18:e12557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Van Den Broeck L, Sierksma A, Hansquine P et al (2021) Comparison between touchscreen operant chambers and water maze to detect early prefrontal dysfunction in mice. Genes Brain Behav 20:e12695

    Google Scholar 

  103. Whoolery CW, Yun S, Reynolds RP et al (2020) Multi-domain cognitive assessment of male mice shows space radiation is not harmful to high-level cognition and actually improves pattern separation. Sci Rep 10:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Yang J-H, Presby RE, Jarvie AA et al (2020) Pharmacological studies of effort-related decision making using mouse touchscreen procedures: effects of dopamine antagonism do not resemble reinforcer devaluation by removal of food restriction. Psychopharmacology 237:33–43

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Zeleznikow-Johnston AM, Renoir T, Churilov L et al (2018) Touchscreen testing reveals clinically relevant cognitive abnormalities in a mouse model of schizophrenia lacking metabotropic glutamate receptor 5. Sci Rep 8:16412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Zhao Z, Hood RJ, Ong LK et al (2021) Exploring how low oxygen post conditioning improves stroke-induced cognitive impairment: a consideration of amyloid-beta loading and other mechanisms. Front Neurol 12:231

    Google Scholar 

  107. Zhou LYY, Wright TE, Clarkson AN (2016) Prefrontal cortex stroke induces delayed impairment in spatial memory. Behav Brain Res 296:373–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

NIH (NS 088555-07A1, PI: AMS), NASA (80NSSC21K0814, PI: SY), University of Pennsylvania (Dept Radiation Oncology Pilot Grant, co-PI: AJE; Undergraduate Research Foundation, PI: SY; Trainees: GLB, HAH), the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation (2019 NARSAD Young Investigator Grant, PI: SY), Children Hospital of Philadelphia (2022 Forderer Grant, co-PI: SY).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Sanghee Yun and Amelia J. Eisch contributed equally with all other contributors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurology, Department of Neuroscience, The University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA

    Katherine M. Cotter & Ann M. Stowe

  2. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Grace L. Bancroft, Harley A. Haas & Raymon Shi

  3. Department of Anatomy, Brain Health Research Centre and Brain Research New Zealand, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

    Andrew N. Clarkson

  4. Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN, USA

    Matthew E. Croxall

  5. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Research Institute, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Sanghee Yun & Amelia J. Eisch

  6. Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Sanghee Yun

  7. Department of Neuroscience, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Amelia J. Eisch

Authors
  1. Katherine M. Cotter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Grace L. Bancroft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Harley A. Haas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Raymon Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrew N. Clarkson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Matthew E. Croxall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ann M. Stowe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sanghee Yun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Amelia J. Eisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sanghee Yun or Amelia J. Eisch .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Amarillo, TX, USA

    Vardan T. Karamyan

  2. Department of Neurology, Department of Neuroscience, The University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA

    Ann M. Stowe

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature

About this protocol

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this protocol

Cotter, K.M. et al. (2023). Use of an Automated Mouse Touchscreen Platform for Quantification of Cognitive Deficits After Central Nervous System Injury. In: Karamyan, V.T., Stowe, A.M. (eds) Neural Repair. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 2616. Humana, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-2926-0_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-2926-0_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-0716-2925-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-0716-2926-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Protocols

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation