Behavior Research Methods

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 773–785 | Cite as

ARENA 2.0: The next generation automated remote environmental navigation apparatus to facilitate cross-species comparisons in behavior and cognition

  • Julia Schroeder
  • Dennis Garlick
  • Aaron P. Blaisdell
Article

Abstract

A series of experiments illustrated the effectiveness and flexibility of a newly developed Automated Remote Environmental Navigation Apparatus (ARENA) as an alternative to traditional operant and open-field procedures. This system improves the concept developed by Badelt and Blaisdell (Behavior Research Methods, 40, 613–621, 2008; see also Leising, Garlick, Parenteau, & Blaisdell in Behavioural Processes, 81, 105–113, 2009), with significant upgrades in flexibility and reliability, as well as a reduction in cost. ARENA is particularly well adapted for open-field studies and eliminates many confounding factors associated with traditional procedures, such as handling effects and physical cues left by the subject. The original system was based on wireless modules with a small stimulus–response well. Nosepokes or pecks within the aperture of the well could be detected and recorded by a computer. ARENA 2.0 increases the flexibility of this system by replacing the modules with stimulus presentation through a data projector mounted on the ceiling and response detection and recording through a video camera system. We report the specifics of this system as well as behavioral tests using rats and pigeons. We demonstrated the feasibility of ARENA 2.0 for the acquisition of conditional approach to a visual target, followed by tests showing generalization of performance to novel locations and visual properties of the target. These experiments support the use of this technology for automated tasks traditionally studied through open-field preparations or using touchscreen-equipped operant chambers. The advantages of ARENA 2.0 over the original system are a significant reduction in cost and increased reliability, ease of use, and flexibility in both stimulus configuration and subject response measures.

Keywords

Operant Open field Comparative Automation Behavior Cognition 

Notes

Author note

Support for this research was provided by National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grant NS059076 (A.P.B.) and by National Science Foundation (NSF) Grant BCS-0843027 (A.P.B.). This research was conducted following the relevant ethics guidelines for research with animals and was approved by UCLA’s institutional IACUC.

References

  1. Badelt, S. W., & Blaisdell, A. P. (2008). Capacitive sensors for detecting proximity and response. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 613–621. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.2.613 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Biedermann, T., Garlick, D., & Blaisdell, A. P. (2012). Food choice in the laboratory pigeon. Behavioural Processes, 91, 129–132.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Blough, D. S. (1986). Odd-item search by pigeons: Method, instrumentation, and uses. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 18, 413–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Capaldi, E. A., Robinson, G. E., & Fahrback, S. E. (1999). Neuroethology of spatial learning: The birds and the bees. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 651–682.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cook, R. G., Geller, A. I., Zhang, G.-R., & Gowda, R. (2004). Touchscreen-enhanced visual learning in rats. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook, R. G., Katz, J. S., & Blaisdell, A. P. (2012). Temporal properties of visual search in pigeon target localization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 38, 209–216.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook, R. G., Shaw, R., & Blaisdell, A. P. (2001). Dynamic object perception by pigeons: Discrimination of action in video presentations. Animal Cognition, 4, 137–146.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Elsmore, T. F., Parkinson, J. K., & Mellgren, R. L. (1989). Video touch-screen stimulus–response surface for use with primates. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27, 60–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Graf, J. S., Balsam, P. D., & Silver, R. (1985). Associative factors and the development of pecking in the ring dove. Developmental Psychobiology, 18, 447–460.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hauser, M. D., Weiss, D., & Marcus, G. (2002). RETRACTED: Rule learning by cotton-top tamarins. Cognition, 86, B15–B22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Leising, K. J., & Blaisdell, A. P. (2009). Associative basis of landmark learning and integration in vertebrates. Comparative Cognition and Behavior Review, 4, 80–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leising, K. J., Garlick, D., Parenteau, M., & Blaisdell, A. P. (2009). Behavioral research in pigeons with ARENA: An automated remote environmental navigation apparatus. Behavioural Processes, 81, 105–113.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Leising, K. J., Garlick, D., & Blaisdell, A. P. (2011). Overshadowing between landmarks on the touchscreen and in ARENA with pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 37, 488–494.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Leising, K. J., Wong, J., Ruprecht, C. M., & Blaisdell, A. P. (2014). Blocking between landmarks during 2-D (touchscreen) and 3-D (ARENA) search tasks with pigeons. Learning & Behavior, 42, 357–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nakagaki, T., Yamada, H., & Tóth, Á. (2000). Intelligence: Maze-solving by an amoeboid organism. Nature, 407, 470. doi: 10.1038/35035159 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Sawa, K., Leising, K. J., & Blaisdell, A. P. (2005). Sensory preconditioning in spatial learning using a touch screen task in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 31, 368–375.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Scarf, D., Hayne, H., & Colombo, M. (2011). Pigeons on par with primates in numerical competence. Science, 334, 1664.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Shettleworth, S. (1998). Cognition, behavior, and evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  20. Skinner, B. F. (1956). A case history in scientific method. American Psychologist, 11, 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Spetch, M. L., Cheng, K., & MacDonald, S. E. (1996). Learning the configuration of a landmark array: I. Touch-screen studies with pigeons and humans. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 110, 55–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Spetch, M. L., Cheng, K., & Mondloch, M. V. (1992). Landmark use by pigeons in a touch-screen spatial search task. Animal Learning & Behavior, 20, 281–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stahlman, W. D., Roberts, S., & Blaisdell, A. P. (2010). Effect of reward probability on spatial and temporal variation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 36, 77–91. doi: 10.1037/a0015971 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Szél, Á., & Röhlich, P. (1992). Two cone types of rat retina detected by anti-visual pigment antibodies. Experimental Eye Research, 55, 47–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Young, M. E., Wasserman, E. A., & Garner, K. L. (1997). Effects of number of items on the pigeon’s discrimination of same from different visual displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 23, 491–501.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julia Schroeder
    • 1
  • Dennis Garlick
    • 1
  • Aaron P. Blaisdell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations