Shuttle Box Avoidance
Overview
The shuttle box avoidance paradigm measures an animal's ability to learn a predictive association between a warning signal (tone or light) and an impending aversive stimulus (foot shock), and to execute an instrumental escape or avoidance response by shuttling to the opposite compartment. The apparatus consists of two identical chambers connected by a doorway or hurdle. A conditioned stimulus (CS) precedes shock onset by a fixed interval, giving the animal time to shuttle and avoid shock entirely.
Two-way shuttle box avoidance requires the animal to alternate between compartments across trials, creating a conflict between avoidance motivation and the natural tendency to avoid a location where shock was previously received. This bidirectional requirement differentiates shuttle box from one-way avoidance and recruits prefrontal-striatal circuits involved in action selection under conflict.
ConductMaze controls CS presentation, shock delivery, and door/hurdle access across both compartments. The software tracks compartment position via IR beams, classifies each trial as avoidance (shuttle during CS), escape (shuttle during shock), or failure (no shuttle), and generates acquisition curves, response latency distributions, and inter-trial crossing analyses.
Trial Flow
CS Onset
Warning signal (tone/light) activates in current compartment
CS-US Interval
Animal has fixed interval to shuttle (avoidance window)
Shuttle Check
Did animal cross to opposite compartment during CS?
US Onset
If no avoidance: shock delivered until escape shuttle or max duration
Classify Trial
Record as avoidance, escape, or failure; log latency
ITI
Inter-trial interval before next CS presentation
Next Trial/End
Repeat for N trials or end session
Parameters
| Parameter | Type | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| CS type | enum | tone | Warning signal modality: tone, light, or compound |
| CS duration | seconds | 10 | Duration of conditioned stimulus (avoidance window) |
| US intensity | mA | 0.4 | Foot shock amplitude |
| US max duration | seconds | 10 | Maximum shock duration if animal fails to escape |
| ITI | seconds | 30 | Inter-trial interval (fixed or variable) |
| Number of trials | integer | 50 | Total trials per session |
| Sessions | integer | 5 | Number of daily acquisition sessions |
Metrics
| Metric | Unit | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Avoidance rate | % | Percentage of trials with successful avoidance responses |
| Escape rate | % | Percentage of trials with escape but not avoidance |
| Failure rate | % | Percentage of trials with no shuttle response |
| Avoidance latency | seconds | Time from CS onset to shuttle on avoidance trials |
| Escape latency | seconds | Time from US onset to shuttle on escape trials |
| Trials to criterion | count | Trials needed to reach 80% avoidance rate |
| Inter-trial crossings | count | Spontaneous compartment crossings during ITI |
Sample Data
| Subject | Session | Avoidance % | Escape % | Failure % | Avg Avoid Latency (s) | ITI Crossings |
|---|
Representative data for illustration purposes. Actual values will vary by species, strain, and experimental conditions.
Applications
- 1Active coping assessment — distinguishes proactive (avoidance) from reactive (escape) defensive strategies
- 2Antidepressant screening — SSRIs and SNRIs modulate avoidance acquisition in chronic stress models
- 3Prefrontal function — two-way conflict recruits mPFC for response inhibition and action selection
- 4Anxiety-avoidance interaction — comorbid anxiety models show altered avoidance learning curves
- 5Strain comparisons — robust strain differences in avoidance acquisition rates (e.g., Fisher 344 vs Lewis)
Related Protocols
Compatible Products
Ready to Automate Your Behavioral Protocols?
Contact us for a demo and pricing information.
