Behavioral Mazes

Active Place Avoidance

SKU ME-APA-6003
$13,990.00
IncludesStandard care

Rotating arena system for assessing spatial navigation and avoidance learning in rodents through continuous platform rotation and room cue-defined shock zones.

Species SKU ME-APA-6003
$13,990.00
Scientist guidance
Louise Corscadden, PhD, Director of Science

Louise Corscadden, PhD

Director of Science · ConductScience

Ask Louise about Active Place Avoidance fit, setup, configuration, or quote prep.

Key Specifications

Full details →
Model fit
Mouse, Rat
SKU family
CS-958422
Sizing
65.0 x 36.0 x 27.0 cm
Ordering
Online checkout and quote request available
Category
Behavioral Mazes
Build notes
Confirm accessories, station layout, and support needs before purchase
Category: Behavioral Mazes
Ask a question

Have a question? Just ask.

Send it over and we'll email you a personalized answer — no call, no scheduling.

Personalized email reply
Usually within one business day
Helpful answers published here

Prefer to talk it through?

Ask your question

Type it below and we'll email you a personalized answer — no meeting required.

We'll only use your email to send your answer; broadly useful answers may be published anonymously.

Accessories

Enhance your setup with compatible accessories

Total: $0.00

Configuration considerations

Common Active Place Avoidance setup decisions

Use these notes to scope species, cohort, tracking, and automation needs. Only verified product or support routes are linked from this section.

This productStandard

Active Place Avoidance

Rotating arena or place-avoidance platform with stationary shock zone

spatial avoidance learning, conflict between room and arena cues, and memory flexibility.

Quote

Request Quote
BuyableScaled option

Active Place Avoidance Species Variant

Mouse, rat, aquatic, insect, or large-animal scaling as appropriate

Use species-specific dimensions and lighting so the apparatus tests the intended construct instead of body size, visibility, or handling tolerance.

Quote

View options ->
SpecialtyAutomation

Active Place Avoidance With Tracking

Camera, gates, sensors, cue control, or event logging as required

Best when the protocol needs reproducible timing, high-throughput scoring, or defensible endpoint extraction across cohorts.

Quote

Configure tracking ->

§ 1

Introduction

The Active Place Avoidance is a avoidance assay built around spatial avoidance learning, conflict between room and arena cues, and memory flexibility. Interpretable data depend on matching the apparatus geometry, subject species, trial structure, and scoring rules to the behavioral construct under study. 1

Spatial avoidance protocols depend on stable geometry, consistent trial timing, and pre-defined scoring rules. Without those controls, avoidance time can be shifted by motivation, locomotion, light level, odor, cue salience, or handling rather than the intended behavioral construct. 1

This methods section summarizes setup, endpoint definitions, common confounds, sample output, adjacent assays, and reporting details needed to evaluate Active Place Avoidance results alongside the product specifications. 1

§ 2

Methods

2.1 Procedure

Spatial avoidance with standardized setup, trial timing, and endpoint extraction.

Pre-test setup

  1. 1.Define construct: Pre-register whether the study uses Active Place Avoidance for avoidance behavior, screening, cohort comparison, or apparatus validation.
  2. 2.Calibrate apparatus: Verify rotating arena or place-avoidance platform with stationary shock zone, visibility, lighting, surface condition, cue placement, and camera field of view before animals enter the room.
  3. 3.Set scoring rules: Define avoidance time, omissions, exclusions, latency cutoffs, and event thresholds before acquisition starts.
  4. 4.Control carryover: Use consistent cleaning, handling, acclimation, and inter-trial timing so odor, stress, and fatigue do not become hidden treatment variables.

Trial sequence

  1. 1.Start trial: Place the subject at the protocol-defined start location and begin synchronized video or event logging.
  2. 2.Record behavior: Capture avoidance time, path order, latency, dwell time, and relevant zone or arm events throughout the trial.1
  3. 3.Apply endpoint rules: Score only committed entries or events that meet the pre-defined body-position and timing criteria.
  4. 4.End and reset: Stop at the maximum duration, completion criterion, or humane endpoint, then clean and reset the apparatus.
  5. 5.Export QC: Review tracking loss, outlier latency, immobility, omissions, and apparatus notes before group-level analysis.

Critical methodological constraints

  • Shock sensitivity. Document shock sensitivity because it can shift avoidance time independent of the intended construct.
  • Locomotor activity. Keep locomotor activity stable across cohorts and sessions.
  • Cue stability. Audit cue stability before interpreting group differences.
  • Arena rotation. Report arena rotation when it changes engagement, exploration, or measurable trial completion.
  • Stress reactivity. Flag stress reactivity during QA because it often explains apparent assay failure.2

2.2 Measurement & Analysis

Core Active Place Avoidance endpoints for behavioral interpretation and apparatus quality control.

Avoidance time

Spatial avoidance learning

Avoidance time is the primary endpoint for this page and should be paired with latency and quality-control flags.1

First-entry latency

Latency and initiation

First-entry latency helps distinguish task performance from motivation, freezing, fatigue, or handling effects.

Shock-zone entries

Spatial or zone strategy

Shock-zone entries captures how the subject solved the task, not only whether it reached the endpoint.

Distance traveled

Engagement control

Distance traveled identifies omissions, low exploration, sensor dropouts, or species-specific non-response.

Cue-frame mismatch

Quality-control flag

Cue-frame mismatch should be reviewed before exporting final group summaries.

+ Additional metrics: trial duration, zone dwell, event count, path efficiency, tracking confidence, exclusions, and session-level notes.

2.3 avoidance time ratio (analysis)

A compact percentage summary for Active Place Avoidance output.

Inline calculator

Type the values your tracker recorded.

Full calculator with 95% CI ->
Avoidance time ratio

86.7%

Formula: avoidance time / (avoidance time + shock-zone time) x 100. Interpret with latency, engagement, and confound checks before making construct-level claims. 1

§ 3

Results

PubMed publication counts, sample apparatus output, and recent papers from a dated PubMed snapshot.

3.1 Publication trends

PubMed volume and co-occurring behavioral methods for Active Place Avoidance studies.

Figure 1 · Active Place Avoidance publications by year (PubMed)

Papers per year that match this paradigm's PubMed search.

2000201020202026 to date: 4 papers

Total in PubMed: 104 papers. PubMed snapshot taken 2026-09-25.

Figure 2 · Methods co-occurring with Active Place Avoidance (last 12 months)

Share of recent Active Place Avoidance papers in PubMed that also mention each method.

3.2 Sample apparatus output

Representative Active Place Avoidance output for methods review and endpoint interpretation.

Table 1 · Per-animal Active Place Avoidance scoring output

AnimalGroupAvoidance timeFirst-entry latencyShock-zone entriesSummary
APA-001Control274 s88 s287.3%
APA-002Control261 s79 s386.1%
APA-003Impaired188 s31 s962.7%
APA-004Impaired176 s28 s1158.7%

Synthetic example for illustration only. Replace with tracked output screenshots or exported data when product media are available.

3.3 Recent findings (PubMed)

  • Beneficial Effects of Intravenous Immunoglobulin Treatment in a Mouse Preclinical Model of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.

    Chen M, Puhakka N, Edson J, et al.. J Neurotrauma. 2026 Jun.

    The long-term sequelae of severe penetrating traumatic brain injury (TBI) include neurological and psychiatric disability, impaired cognitive function, and the development of post-traumatic epilepsy.

  • Transcriptomic signatures of hippocampal active place avoidance memory maintenance.

    Vingan I, Phatarpekar S, Tung VSK, et al.. Front Cell Neurosci. 2026.

    The gene expression changes associated with memory acquisition, consolidation and reconsolidation-all active epochs in memory formation-have been well characterized in the rodent hippocampus. Less is known, however, of the changes in gene expression during the offline maintenance of memory.

  • Persistently Increased Expression of PKMzeta and Unbiased Gene Expression Profiles Identify Hippocampal Molecular Traces of a Long-Term Active Place Avoidance Memory and "Shadow" Proteins.

    Han J, Grau-Perales A, Harris RM, et al.. Adv Sci (Weinh). 2026 May.

    Long-term memory formation transiently activates Ca2+-calmodulin kinase II and atypical protein kinase C isoform iota/lambda, whereas persistent activation of the other atypical PKC, protein kinase M zeta (PKMζ), together with its interacting partner, the scaffolding-protein KIBRA (Wwc1), are necessary for maintaining …

  • Task-Specific Effects of mGlu2/3 Receptor Agonist LY379268 on MK-801-Induced Behavioral and Neural Dysfunctions in Rats.

    Hruza K, Cernotova D, Maleninska K, et al.. Physiol Res. 2026 Mar 13.

    NMDA receptor hypofunction can lead to behavioral and cognitive disturbances, including hyperlocomotion, and is considered a core pathophysiological mechanism underlying cognitive and negative symptoms in schizophrenia.

  • Persistently increased expression of PKMzeta and unbiased gene expression profiles identify hippocampal molecular traces of a long-term active place avoidance memory and 'shadow' proteins.

    Han J, Grau-Perales A, Harris RM, et al.. bioRxiv. 2025 Sep 14.

    Long-term memory formation transiently activates Ca2+-calmodulin kinase IIα and atypical protein kinase C isoform iota/lambda, whereas persistent activation of the other atypical PKC, protein kinase M zeta (PKMζ), together with its interacting partner, the scaffolding-protein KIBRA (Wwc1), are necessary for maintaining…

  • Group 2 innate lymphoid cells drive inhibitory synapse formation with lasting effects on learning and memory.

    Steffen J, Deshpande D, Düsedau HP, et al.. J Neuroinflammation. 2025 Jun 23.

    The immune system provides multiple layers of protection that extend beyond conventional pathogen defense, including context-dependent modulation of behavior. However, the mechanisms driving these immune-mediated behavioral modifications remain incompletely understood.

View all 104 matching papers on PubMed →

§ 4

Discussion

Limitations of the paradigm, methodological caveats, and current directions.

4.1 Common confounds

Variables that can shift Active Place Avoidance results apart from the effect under study.

Shock sensitivity

Shock sensitivity can change apparent Active Place Avoidance performance without reflecting the intended behavioral construct. Control it in setup and report it in methods.

Locomotor activity

Locomotor activity can change apparent Active Place Avoidance performance without reflecting the intended behavioral construct. Control it in setup and report it in methods.

Cue stability

Cue stability can change apparent Active Place Avoidance performance without reflecting the intended behavioral construct. Control it in setup and report it in methods.

Arena rotation

Arena rotation can change apparent Active Place Avoidance performance without reflecting the intended behavioral construct. Control it in setup and report it in methods.

Stress reactivity

Stress reactivity can change apparent Active Place Avoidance performance without reflecting the intended behavioral construct. Control it in setup and report it in methods.

4.2 Construct validity caveats

Active Place Avoidance is strongest when endpoint definitions, apparatus settings, and exclusion rules are specified before testing. Treat a single summary metric as a screening signal, then confirm interpretation with latency, engagement, comparator assays, and quality-control review. 1

4.3 Special considerations

When should I choose Active Place Avoidance?

Choose Active Place Avoidance when the research question matches spatial avoidance learning, conflict between room and arena cues, and memory flexibility. and the lab can control shock sensitivity, locomotor activity, and trial timing.

What setup variables should be specified before testing?

Specify species, cohort size, apparatus dimensions, lighting, tracking method, automation level, cleaning workflow, endpoint definitions, and exclusion criteria before data collection begins.

What makes the data interpretable?

Interpretation is strongest when the apparatus configuration, trial timing, scoring thresholds, confound controls, and comparator assays are documented together with the primary endpoint.

4.4 Current directions

Quarterly editorial review of emerging Active Place Avoidance methodology. Q2 2026

Methods

Endpoint standardization

Define avoidance time, latency, exclusions, and engagement flags before comparing cohorts.

Emerging

Automated scoring

Camera and event-log workflows can reduce observer burden and improve consistency when zone definitions and event thresholds are validated.

Methods

Comparator batteries

Active Place Avoidance should link to adjacent maze, motor, or motivation assays when interpretation depends on controls.

Emerging

Integrated method reporting

Apparatus dimensions, protocol fit, tracking compatibility, and endpoint definitions should be reported together so results are easier to reproduce.

§ 5

References

10 selected methods and validation references for Active Place Avoidance.

  1. Dudchenko PA. An overview of the tasks used to test working memory in rodents. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2004;28(7):699-709. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.09.002
  2. Shoji H, et al. Comprehensive behavioral test battery for mice. Curr Protoc Mouse Biol. 2012;2:153-187. Find source
  3. Vorhees CV, Williams MT. Assessing spatial learning and memory in rodents. ILAR J. 2014;55(2):310-332. Find source
  4. Lalonde R. The neurobiological basis of spontaneous alternation. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2002;26(1):91-104. doi:10.1016/S0149-7634(01)00041-0
  5. Walf AA, Frye CA. The use of the elevated plus maze as an assay of anxiety-related behavior in rodents. Nat Protoc. 2007;2(2):322-328. doi:10.1038/nprot.2007.44
  6. Pellow S, Chopin P, File SE, Briley M. Validation of open:closed arm entries in an elevated plus-maze as a measure of anxiety in the rat. J Neurosci Methods. 1985;14(3):149-167. doi:10.1016/0165-0270(85)90031-7
  7. Crawley JN, Goodwin FK. Preliminary report of a simple animal behavior model for the anxiolytic effects of benzodiazepines. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1980;13(2):167-170. doi:10.1016/0091-3057(80)90067-2
  8. File SE, Wardill AG. Validity of head-dipping as a measure of exploration in a modified hole-board. Psychopharmacologia. 1975;44(1):53-59. Find source
  9. Walsh RN, Cummins RA. The Open-Field Test: a critical review. Psychol Bull. 1976;83(3):482-504. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.83.3.482
  10. Brown RE, Corey SC, Moore AK. Differences in measures of exploration and fear in MHC-congenic C57BL/6J and B6-H-2K mice. Behav Genet. 1999;29(4):263-271. Find source
Active Place Avoidance
Active Place Avoidance
$13,990.00
Added to quoteView Quote