$1,890.00 – $1,990.00
Mouse | |
Length: 100cm | |
Height: 50cm | |
End box: 20 x 20 x 20cm | |
Beam widths: 6;12;24;48mm. All widths are included in each order | |
Beam shape: Rectangular. Round beams are available upon request | |
(Optional) Start Platform ($300) | |
(Optional) Encatchment: ($180) | |
(Optional): Adjustable height; Angle (+$150) |
Rat | |
Length: 125cm | |
Height: 50cm | |
End box: 25 x 25 x 25cm | |
Beam widths: 6;12;24;48mm. All widths are included in each order | |
Beam shape: Rectangular. Round beams are available upon request | |
(Optional) Start Platform + $350 (25cm x 25cm) | |
(Optional)Encatchment +$210 | |
(Optional): Adjustable height; Angle (+$150) |
The balance beam is a narrow ‘walking bridge’ for mice/rats to walk across to test sensorineural balance and coordination. The beam generally sits between two elevated platforms with platforms to hold either mice or rats. Interchangeable beams can be used in thinner and thinner intervals.
The essential components include:
Modifications
Yes
Yes
Yes
The shipping weight of the Balance Beam is 27lb
The balance beam test is a method for evaluating motor coordination and balance in rodents. This assessment is particularly useful for studying sensorimotor function following motor cortex damage, traumatic brain injury, gamma-aminobutyric acid infusion into the frontal cortex, and in rodent models of stroke (as reviewed by Carter et al., 2001). It is also employed to examine the effects of aging and to profile transgenic animals.
Rodents’ performance on the balance beam may improve over time with recovery, pharmacological interventions, and motor practice (Gentile et al., 1978; Feeney et al., 1982; Brailowsky et al., 1986). Improved motor coordination post-injury might reflect transient neural dysfunction in regions connected to, but distant from, the injury site.
The balance beam test involves using one or more narrow beams of varying dimensions elevated above the ground. At the start of the beam, an aversive stimulus should be employed to motivate the rodent, with a goal box or escape area placed at the opposite end. It is recommended to video record the trials.
Performance metrics typically include the time taken to traverse the beam, the number of foot slips, and a mean score if a grading system is used (Feeney et al., 1982; Metz et al., 2000).
This test is effective for assessing fine motor deficits and is suitable for both short-term and longitudinal studies with multiple time points. It is cost-effective, straightforward to implement, and allows for extensive modifications to equipment and experimental protocols to suit various study designs.
The Balance Beam test is especially valued for its affordability and simplicity in construction. It enables researchers to evaluate motor functions by observing how well subjects navigate a narrow beam. Typically, an aversive stimulus such as bright lights or loud noises motivates the subjects to cross the beam to reach a safe area at the end, though positive reinforcements can also be effective. The task’s difficulty can be adjusted by changing the beam’s width or shape, with rounded beams generally presenting more of a challenge than square ones.
Rodents with motor function impairments often exhibit poor performance on the Balance Beam, showing behaviors such as hesitation, slower movement, or missteps. These observations provide insights into the subjects’ balance and motor abilities. Compared to other balance and motor function tests, like the Rotarod, the Balance Beam can offer a more nuanced measure of subtle motor skills (Stanley et al., 2005).
The Balance Beam apparatus consists of two support columns and a narrow beam, with adjustable height settings. It can be customized with various beam lengths, widths, and additional features such as enclosed spaces at the beam’s ends, start or end platforms, an extra flat beam for support, and a catchment area to prevent falls.
Other tools for assessing motor capabilities include the Tilt Ladder, Horizontal Ladder, and Stairway test.
The Balance Beam apparatus features a straightforward design with a narrow beam elevated above the ground by support columns. The beam has a tapered shape and comes in lengths ranging from 125 cm to 1 meter. For animals with motor impairments, an additional lower, flat beam can be provided to offer extra support.
The setup includes an option for a detachable catchment area positioned beneath the narrow beam to prevent injuries from falls. The height of the beam can be adjusted using the side posts, with typical elevations set between 50 and 60 cm above the ground. To enhance motivation, optional additions include a 25 x 25 cm start platform and a 25 x 25 x 25 cm end box, which can be placed at the respective ends of the beam.
Balance Beam task provides a simple assessment of motor coordination and motor capabilities. The test is useful in comparing the effects of drugs on the motor functions of animals and in the development of appropriate treatment. Further, the task also allows evaluation of age-related decline in motor functions and effects of negative stimuli such as bright lights on motor capabilities. In comparison to the Rotarod test, the Balance Beam walking test tends to be more sensitive in evaluating certain types of motor coordination deficits.
Prior to beginning the experiment, the apparatus should be thoroughly cleaned to prevent the influence of any lingering stimuli. Overhead lighting set-up is recommended to prevent shadows. The arena should be sufficiently lit. Observation of the Balance Beam task can be done using tracking software and a video camera, such as Noldus Ethovision XT or ANY-Maze mounted above the apparatus. Live scoring is also possible. It is recommended that at least two investigators perform the test.
Allow the subject to acclimate to the testing environment for a minimum of 60 minutes before beginning the task. Use a wider beam for initial training to help the subjects become accustomed to traversing it. Position the subject at the starting point and let it move across the beam to reach the endpoint. Conduct this task across 4 consecutive trials for each subject. After completing the trials, return the animal to its home cage.
Give the subject a minimum of 60 minutes to adjust to the testing environment. Start the assessment using the widest beam available. Position the subject at the starting location and allow it to cross the beam to reach the endpoint within the designated time frame, which can be between 1 and 5 minutes. Test with various beam widths and shapes, conducting at least 2 consecutive trials for each configuration. If the subject falls off the beam, mark it as a failure and assign the maximum latency time for that trial.
The Balance Beam task is a straightforward method for evaluating motor coordination and capabilities. It is particularly useful for examining the impact of drugs on motor functions in animals and for developing suitable treatments. Additionally, this task helps assess age-related declines in motor skills and the effects of negative stimuli, such as bright lights, on motor performance. Compared to the Rotarod test, the Balance Beam is often more sensitive in detecting specific motor coordination deficits.
Before starting the experiment, ensure the apparatus is thoroughly cleaned to eliminate any residual stimuli. It is advisable to use overhead lighting to avoid shadows and ensure the testing area is well-lit. For observing the Balance Beam task, tracking software and video cameras, such as Noldus EthoVision XT or ANY-Maze, should be positioned above the apparatus. Live scoring can also be conducted. It is recommended that at least two investigators oversee the test to ensure accuracy and reliability.
Give the subject a minimum of 60 minutes to adjust to the testing environment before beginning the experiment. Start training with a beam that is wider than the narrow testing beam. Position the subject at the starting point and let it navigate the beam to reach the endpoint. Conduct this exercise across 4 consecutive trials for each subject. After completing the trials, return the animal to its home cage.
Allow the subject at least 60 minutes to acclimate to the test area. Begin testing with the widest beam. Place the subject at the start point and allow it to traverse it to the end-point within the allocated time (can range from 1 to 5 minutes). Repeat the task with different widths and shapes of beams. For each beam perform at least 2 consecutive trials. In case the subject falls off the beam, record it as a fail and allocate it a maximum latency time.
The Balance Beam is a simple apparatus that is easy to modify and adapt to the different needs of an investigation. Simple modifications include the addition of end boxes that provide a safe space for the animal (Sweis et al., 2016) and changing the width and shape of the beams used. Further, different styles of beams such as spiked beams, clear acrylic beams, tapered edge beams, can also be used to test different parameters.
Another simple variation to the Balance Beam test is placing the beam at an inclination. Since some rodents tend to climb up an inclination when threatened. The inclined beam modification is inclusive of this tendency of rodents while testing balance and motor capabilities (Brooks and Dunnett, 2009). This modification was successfully used by Tung et al. in their behavioral assessment of the aging mouse vestibular system. Changing the elevation of the beam is also another simple modification that can be made to achieve different levels of difficulty (Metz et al., 2000, Curzon et al., 2009).
A Challenging Beam Test adaptation of the traditional Balance Beam is often used to further refine the capabilities of Balance Beam task. The apparatus combines the qualities of the Balance Beam with the Grid task to achieve a refined assessment of the subject’s motor capabilities. This adaptation has been used in sensorimotor assessments of Parkinson’s disease (Glajch et al., 2012) and evaluation of motor functions in mice overexpressing human wildtype alpha-synuclein (Fleming et al., 2006).
Modification to the experimental protocol allows further adaptation of the Balance Beam task for different investigations. The shaping protocol (Sakić et al., 1996) uses positive motivation, such as food rewards, to encourage the subjects to explore the beam during the acquisition trial. Following the initial trial, the process is repeated by placing the subject at different start points on the beam. Another protocol variation includes using a stress-sensitive set-up of the Balance Beam (Prévôt et al., 2017). The protocol uses an aversive stimulus, most often bright lights, and a dark goal box to stimulate the subject to cross the beam.
Front paw falls are infrequent and are typically not recorded for detailed analysis. Instead, researchers often employ a grading or scoring system to evaluate the performance of subjects during the Balance Beam task. Additional behaviors, such as freezing, may also be documented. Graphical representation of the data facilitates an intuitive comparison of performance between sham and disease or injury models.
The Balance Beam task has often been used in the assessment of balance in children. The Springfield Beam Walking test (Seashore, 1947) was developed to provide a standardized measure of dynamic balance. The study evaluated the performances of males aged 5 to 18 years. Another age-based study was conducted by Kokubun et al in children with mental retardation. The age of walking has long been used as a measure of infantile motor development. The 1996 paper aimed to clarify the predictive value of age in determining walking and motor performances in the later years of a child. The beam walking task used in the investigation was modified depending on the severity of mental retardation in the children.
The Balance Beam task has also seen an application in studies evaluating the balance performances of hearing-impaired children. Maes et al used the balance beam task as one of the tasks to measure balance in hearing-impaired children with and without vestibular dysfunction. It was found that children with vestibular dysfunction performed worse than those with normal vestibular responses, though both groups performed significantly poorer than the normal hearing group. Another study by Ebrahimi et al evaluated the Balance Beam performances of hearing-impaired children with and without cochlear implants. The balance performances of the implant group were significantly lower than that of the non-implant group. The result suggested that the implant group were at a higher risk of developing motor and balance deficits.
The Balance Beam task was used by Miyasike-daSilva et al to investigate if mobility aids reduced attentional demands during walking. Subjects were tasked with an attentional demand task in addition to the beam walking task. It was observed that mobility aids improved walking performance while allowing the participants to have a faster reaction time to the attentional demand task. This trend was also observed in healthy older participants.
Sipp et al used the Balance Beam task to assist with the identification of the neural mechanisms involved in the loss of balance during walking. High-density EEG, electromyography, and body motion analysis were recorded as the participants walked the treadmill-mounted balance beam. The data obtained from the recorded parameters when the participant walked on and off the beam balance was used to analyze sensorimotor cortex clusters.
The availability of latest technology also makes execution of the Balance Beam task using virtual reality a possibility (see also Virtual T-Maze and Virtual Elevated Plus Maze). Antley and Slater (2011) investigated if participants would behave similarly in an immersive virtual environment as they would in a physical environment. Participants performed a Beam Walking task in both physical and immersive virtual environments. Surface electromyography data revealed a significantly comparable onset of muscle activity in both environments. This result suggests that virtual Balance Beam can be efficiently used to assess motor function and balance in humans. With virtual reality, setting up different environments with varying levels of complexity can be easily accomplished. Environments can include a cityscape or an outdoor nature set-up. The benefit of virtual environments is that they are easily modifiable, cost-effective and provide a safe environment for the participants.
The Balance Beam task offers a straightforward and precise method for assessing sensorimotor functions in rodents. It is particularly effective at detecting subtle motor impairments compared to the Rotarod test. The simplicity of the Balance Beam’s design allows for extensive customization, making it adaptable to various research needs. Adjustments to the task’s difficulty can be made by altering the width or shape of the beams, and the apparatus can be modified in numerous ways to suit different experimental requirements.
This task is especially suitable for active rodent strains. Less active subjects may require preliminary training with positive reinforcement before participating in the actual test. Additionally, the weight of the animals should be considered; heavier subjects might need wider beams to improve grip and performance. Experimental fatigue can also occur with repeated trials, so it is crucial to provide adequate rest between sessions. Moreover, how the subjects are handled, along with their mental state and natural behaviors, can impact their performance.
| Species | Mouse, Rat |
|---|---|
| Brand | MazeEngineers |
You must be logged in to post a review.
There are no questions yet. Be the first to ask a question about this product.
Monday – Friday
9 AM – 5 PM EST
DISCLAIMER: ConductScience and affiliate products are NOT designed for human consumption, testing, or clinical utilization. They are designed for pre-clinical utilization only. Customers purchasing apparatus for the purposes of scientific research or veterinary care affirm adherence to applicable regulatory bodies for the country in which their research or care is conducted.
Reviews
There are no reviews yet.