Bussey-Saksida Touch Screen Operant Conditioning Chamber

• Specifications
• Introduction
• Features
• Software
• Protocol
• Data
• Literature
• References

Specifications

Mice	Rat
Chamber size: 20cm (l) x 20cm (w) x 20cm (h)	Chamber size: 30cm (l) x 30cm (w) x 30cm (h)
(1x) Touchscreen	(1x) Touchscreen
(1x) Pellet Dispenser (or Lickometer)	(1x) Pellet Dispenser (or Lickometer)
(1x) Pellet Receptacle	(1x) Pellet Receptacle
Feces and urine tray	Feces and urine tray
Sound attenuating cubicle with (1) speaker - (1) circulation fan - (1) IR light	Sound attenuating cubicle with (1) speaker - (1) circulation fan - (1) IR light
Conduct Software: $1290	Conduct Software: $1290
Optional: TTL - Retractable levers or nose pokes - and more!	Optional: TTL - Retractable levers or nose pokes - and more!

Introduction

The Bussey-Saksida Touch Screen Operant Conditioning Chamber was developed by Dr. Jennifer Bussey and Dr. David Saksida who designed the chamber to address the limitations of traditional operant conditioning chambers, which they found were often less interactive and less adaptable for studying complex cognitive processes in animals.

The chamber can be used for multiple purposes, such as in psychological testing to assess visual discrimination, working memory, task-switching abilities, and other cognitive processes in animals. In pharmacological studies, the chamber enables researchers to investigate how various substances or treatments, such as drugs, affect behavior and cognitive abilities. In the field of comparative neuroscience, the device allows for the comparison of behavior across different species, offering insights into animal cognition and the neurological foundations of behavior.

The motivation behind the invention was to create a more flexible and sophisticated tool that could support a broader range of behavioral tasks, particularly those that require the animal to interact with visual stimuli. Traditional operant conditioning chambers were typically limited to simple tasks like pressing levers or responding to cues in the environment. In contrast, the touch screen chamber allows for more complex, task-specific interactions, such as visual discrimination, working memory tests, and cognitive flexibility exercises, which are crucial for studying higher-order cognitive functions.

By incorporating a touch screen interface, the chamber provides a versatile platform for testing a variety of cognitive processes, including attention, memory, and decision-making. It also facilitates more precise data collection, allowing researchers to monitor detailed behaviors and responses with greater accuracy. The invention was intended to push the boundaries of behavioral neuroscience and provide more accurate and nuanced insights into animal cognition, learning, and the effects of different substances or conditions on behavior.

The Bussey-Saksida Touch Screen Operant Conditioning Chamber was developed to study advanced cognitive and behavioral research in animals, facilitating a deeper understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying learning and memory.

Features

Sound attenutating chamber

• Dimensions 60 x 55 x 65 cm (width x depth x height)
• Multi-layer sound-proof insulation material that attenuates environment disturbance
• Approx 40dB noise reduction
• Automated LED house light
• Automated IR light
• Automated air circulation fan
• Camera mount
• Pull-out floor shelf (optional)
• Open slot for Optogenetic, cannuals, cables etc (optional)

Chamber

• Acrylic walls and base (Black or grey or blue or white)
• Interior dimensions:
• Mouse: about 20x20x20 cm (LxWxH) to fit the grid of dimension 18x18 cm, Rat: about 30x30x30 cm (LxWxH) to fit the grid of dimension 27x27 cm,
• Custom dimensions available Removable lid. Removable feces catcher for easy cleaning
• House light, two cue lights, speaker, one pellet dispenser, two levers (or nose pokes) with sensor detection.
• Chamber construction supports optogenetic devices

Pellet Dispenser

• Two retractable levers are made of stainless steel mounted on the interaction panel
• Width: 1.6 cm for rats and 1 cm for mice Nose pokes also available

Pellet dispenser x1 The pellet dispenser is controlled by Conduct software to release pellets via protocol or lever press 20 mg pellet dispenser is the default choice (tested with pellets from Bio-Serv). 45 mg pellet dispenser is also available Lickometers also available Touchsceen Highly configurable touchscreen for multiple paradigms Shock grid (optional) Specifcations: Constant current - 0.1 to 4.0 mA in 0.1 mA steps

Software

• Our Operant system has multiple software options to best suit your needs.
  • Our Conductor software controls the system directly
  • For those looking for protocol set-up combined with video tracking and analysis, the system is compatible with  ConductVision, Noldus Ethovision XT,and ANY-Maze
• Each operant chamber includes a control box to control the chamber .
• The main controller connects to the PC via a USB (RS-232) cable and communicates with the software package on PC.
•  Protocols can be set per chamber or per group so that both control and treatment groups can be tested simultaneously with the same or different parameters.
• The software supports up to 16 chambers simultaneously and allows individual chambers to start/stop and run independently

Each order comes with the option of one task type as default. Popular paradigms include:

Paradigm Name	Purpose	Application
Rodent Continuous Performance Task: Image (rCPT)	Examines Impulsivity - Attention - Cognitive flexibility and response inhibition	Alzheimer’s - OCD - ADHD - and Schizophrenia
Visual Discrimination & Reversal Learning	Tests learning ability - cognitive flexibility - and response inhibition	Executive function studies - schizophrenia models
Pairwise Discrimination Task	Assesses visual learning and object recognition	Alzheimer’s disease models; perceptual learning studies
Trial-Unique Nonmatching-to-Location (TUNL) Task	Evaluates spatial working memory and pattern separation	Hippocampal function studies; neurodegeneration models
Paired-Associate Learning (PAL) Task	Tests associative memory and object-location binding	Alzheimer’s disease models; aging studies
Delayed Matching-to-Sample (DMTS) Task	Assesses short-term memory and delay-dependent learning	Memory decay studies; cognitive aging research
Five-Choice Serial Reaction Time Task (5-CSRTT)	Measures attention; impulsivity; and response control	ADHD models; frontal cortex function studies
Progressive Ratio Task	Evaluates motivation and effort-based decision-making	Reward processing studies; depression models
Probabilistic Learning Task	Tests reinforcement learning and uncertainty processing	Dopamine-related decision-making studies; psychiatric disorder models
Object-Location Contingency Task	Examines spatial learning and memory	Hippocampal research; spatial cognition studies
Serial Reversal Learning Task	Tests cognitive flexibility and adaptability	Frontal cortex function research; neuropsychiatric disorder studies
Delay Discounting	Examines impulsivity; self-control; and decision-making	ADHD; substance use disorders; gambling addiction; and obesity.
Go/No-Go	Assesses inhibitory control; attention and executive function; and to model for impulsivity and impulse-control disorders	ADHD; obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD); substance use disorders; frontal lobe damage; and impulsive aggression.

• Maze Engineers can collaborate closely with the user to enhance software packages to their needs
• Software customizations and 2+ paradigm packages upon request

Training Protocol

1. Habituation (Acclimation Phase)

Purpose: To familiarize the animal with the chamber environment.

• Place the animal in the chamber for a specified period (e.g., 10–30 minutes per day) over several days.
• No specific tasks are given; the goal is to reduce stress and encourage exploration.
• Food or liquid rewards may be dispensed to create a positive association with the chamber.

2. Pre-Training (Shaping Behavior)

Purpose: To teach the animal to interact with the touch screen.

• The screen displays simple stimuli (e.g., a bright shape or a dot).
• The animal is rewarded (e.g., with a food pellet or liquid reward) for touching the screen at the correct location.
• Incorrect responses may trigger a short timeout (e.g., 5 seconds with a blank screen) to encourage correct behavior.
• This phase continues until the animal consistently touches the screen.

3. Task Training (Experimental Phase)

Purpose: To train the animal on a specific cognitive or behavioral task.
Examples of Tasks:

• Visual Discrimination Task: The screen presents two images, and the animal must touch the correct one to receive a reward.
• Paired-Associate Learning: The animal learns associations between specific stimuli and must select the correct pair.
• Delayed Matching-to-Sample: A sample image appears, disappears, and then reappears alongside a distractor; the animal must choose the original image.
• Attentional Set-Shifting: The animal must learn and switch between different stimulus-response rules.

Procedure:

• The animal completes multiple trials per session (e.g., 30–100 trials per session, depending on species and task complexity).
• Difficulty may be adjusted dynamically (e.g., reducing stimulus size, introducing delays, or adding distractors).
• Incorrect responses may result in timeouts or correction trials.

4. Data Collection and Analysis

Purpose: To record behavioral performance and analyze cognitive function.
Procedure:

• Automatically collect data on response accuracy, reaction time, learning curves, and task efficiency.
• Compare performance across experimental conditions (e.g., drug treatment vs. control, lesion studies, genetic models).
• Statistical analyses (e.g., ANOVA, t-tests) are conducted to assess behavioral patterns.

5. Experimental Adjustments & Endpoints

• Based on initial results, researchers may modify task parameters, introduce new conditions, or add pharmacological manipulations.
• The experiment concludes once the animal reaches predefined learning criteria or after a set number of sessions.

Example Protocol for the Rodent Continuous Performance Task (rCPT) The rCPT task in rodents is based on the human Continuous Performance Task used in clinical neuropsychology. Its main purpose is to measure sustained attention and impulse control over extended periods. The paradigm requires a touch screen to display 5 simple images in a randomised order. The subject must touch the target image to receive a pellet or liquid reward and withhold touching other images.

Performance Metrics

• Hit rate: proportion of correct touches to target stimuli.

• False alarm rate: touches to non-target stimuli.

• Reaction time: time between stimulus onset and touch.

• d′ (d-prime): sensitivity index combining hit and false alarm rates.

• Vigilance decrement: decline in performance over the session.

Go/No-Go Protocol

Stage 0 — Habituation (1–2 sessions)

• Turn the sound-attenuating chamber house light on and deliver free rewards every 20–30 s. End the session when the subject collects ≥30 rewards/session.

Stage 1 — Autoshaping to touch (2–3 sessions)

• Present the touch screen as a large white screen where any touch delivers a reward. The stimulus remains until the subject touches the screen (no limited hold yet).

• Criterion: ≥60 touches/session until reward collection latency is stable.

Stage 2 — Must-touch target (2–5 sessions)

• Present the target image only (e.g., white square) centrally and require the subject to touch the screen within a limited hold time (e.g. start 5 s → reduce to 2 s).

• No response = omission; re-initiate after Inter-Trial Interval (ITI).

• Criterion: ≥80% correct responses, omissions ≤20%.

Stage 3 — Introduce non-target (Go/No-Go, easy ratio) (3–6 sessions)

• Randomized trials: 70% target (Go), 30% non-target (No-Go).

• Responses:

  • Target + touch → reward (Hit); no touch → miss.

  • Non-target + no touch → correct rejection; touch → false alarm (timeout).

• Use longer ITI after false alarms to discourage impulsivity (e.g., +2 s).

• Criterion: d′ ≥ 1.5 (or Hit ≥70% with FA ≤30%) for two consecutive sessions.

Stage 4 — Balanced difficulty (50/50) (3–7 sessions)

• 50% target, 50% non-target; limited hold 1–2 s; ITI variable (mean 5 s).

• Criterion: d′ ≥ 1.8 (typical), omissions ≤15%, stable across 2–3 sessions.

Stage 5 — Stability & parameter tightening (optional, 3–5 sessions)

• Shorten limited hold (→1 s), increase ITI (3–7 s), shrink stimulus size or add distractors (e.g., brief houselight flicker).

• Establish baseline across ≥3 stable days before experiments.

Stage 6 — Test sessions (experimental manipulations)

• Keep parameters fixed from baseline.

• If pharmacological interventions or lesions used in subjects, counterbalance the trial order and include washout days as needed.

Trial structure (per trial)

1. ITI

2. Stimulus onset (target or non-target) + limited hold timer starts

3. Response window:

   • Target: touch = Hit (reward); no touch = Miss

   • Non-target: no touch = Correct Rejection; touch = False Alarm (timeout)

4. Outcome period (reward delivery or timeout)

5. Next ITI (longer after FA to discourage impulsivity)

Data Analysis

1. Basic Performance Analysis

• Accuracy (%): The proportion of correct responses out of total trials.
• Response Latency: The time taken to respond to a stimulus (e.g., touching the correct image).
• Trial Completion Rate: Percentage of trials completed in a session, which can indicate motivation or fatigue.
• Error Rate: Frequency of incorrect responses, which helps assess task difficulty and cognitive impairment.

2. Learning and Progression Analysis

• Learning Curves: Plotting accuracy over multiple sessions to assess improvement over time.
• Trial-to-Criterion Analysis: Number of trials required to reach a predefined accuracy threshold (e.g., 80% correct in three consecutive sessions).
• Performance Stability: Analyzing variability in responses across sessions to determine if performance is consistent.

3. Reaction Time and Decision-Making Analysis

• Reaction Time Distribution: Examining how response times vary across correct and incorrect trials.
• Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff: Analyzing whether faster responses lead to more errors, often visualized in scatterplots or regression analyses.
• Choice Preference Bias: Evaluating whether the subject prefers specific stimuli or locations on the screen.

4. Comparative and Statistical Analyses

• ANOVA (Analysis of Variance): Used for comparing performance across different experimental groups (e.g., drug-treated vs. control).
• t-Tests: Comparing mean accuracy or reaction times between two conditions.
• Regression Analysis: Identifying relationships between variables, such as whether increased task difficulty leads to longer reaction times.
• Repeated Measures Analysis: Used for within-subject comparisons across multiple testing sessions.

5. Cognitive and Behavioral Assessments

• Cognitive Flexibility Analysis: Examining performance in set-shifting tasks where rules change mid-task.
• Memory Performance Analysis: Evaluating performance in delayed-matching tasks by measuring how accuracy declines with increasing delay durations.
• Attention Analysis: Tracking omissions (missed responses) to assess attentional lapses.

6. Pharmacological and Neuroscience Studies

• Dose-Response Curves: Analyzing behavioral changes across different drug dosages.
• Neuropsychological Comparisons: Comparing subjects with brain lesions, genetic modifications, or pharmacological interventions.
• Machine Learning Approaches: Using algorithms to classify behavioral patterns or predict future performance based on past data.

Literature Review

Cognitive and Learning Studies

Several studies have employed the Bussey-Saksida chamber to examine learning and memory processes. For instance, Talpos et al. (2010) used the chamber to assess visual discrimination and reversal learning in rodents. Their findings demonstrated that mice and rats exhibit similar cognitive flexibility impairments following prefrontal cortex lesions, highlighting the chamber’s utility for studying executive function.

Another study by Horner et al. (2013) examined the effects of hippocampal damage on paired-associate learning in rodents. Using the chamber’s paired-associate learning task, the researchers found that hippocampal lesions significantly impaired performance, reinforcing the role of this brain region in relational memory.

Neurodegenerative Disease Models

The touch screen chamber has been extensively used in research on Alzheimer’s disease (AD), Parkinson’s disease (PD), and Huntington’s disease (HD). Mar et al. (2013) utilized the chamber to test cognitive decline in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease, employing a delayed matching-to-sample task. They observed progressive deficits in working memory performance, aligning with human AD pathology.

Similarly, Graybeal et al. (2014) used the apparatus to study cognitive deficits in a Huntington’s disease model. The study found impairments in visual discrimination and attention tasks, supporting the use of the chamber in screening for cognitive dysfunction in neurodegenerative disorders.

In Parkinson’s research, Kamin et al. (2017) used the chamber to assess dopamine-related cognitive impairments in a rat model of PD. Their results suggested that dopamine depletion affects cognitive flexibility and motivation, reinforcing findings from human studies.

Attention and Decision-Making Research

The chamber has also been instrumental in assessing attention, impulsivity, and decision-making. Romberg et al. (2013) used a five-choice serial reaction time task (5-CSRTT) to investigate attentional deficits in rodent models of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Their results indicated that ADHD-like rodents showed higher omission rates and impulsive responses, mirroring human ADHD symptoms.

In decision-making research, Bari et al. (2015) applied a progressive ratio task in the chamber to measure motivation and reward processing. They found that lesions in the orbitofrontal cortex led to altered decision-making, supporting theories that this brain region is crucial for cost-benefit analysis.

Pharmacological Studies

The Bussey-Saksida chamber has been widely used in drug testing and neuropharmacology. Heath et al. (2016) examined the effects of dopaminergic drugs on visual discrimination learning, finding that dopamine agonists improved performance, while antagonists impaired it.

Similarly, Granon et al. (2018) used the chamber to investigate the cognitive effects of cholinergic drugs in aged rats. Their results demonstrated that cholinesterase inhibitors enhanced performance in a delayed matching-to-sample task, mimicking the cognitive benefits seen in human Alzheimer’s patients.

Comparative and Translational Research

One of the chamber’s most significant advantages is its translational potential, as it allows researchers to use the same behavioral paradigms across species. Nithianantharajah et al. (2015) compared rodents and non-human primates in a rule-learning task, demonstrating that both species exhibit similar patterns of cognitive flexibility. This cross-species approach strengthens the chamber’s role in bridging preclinical and clinical research.

Additionally, Bussey et al. (2012) emphasized the chamber’s utility in psychiatric disorder models, including schizophrenia and depression, noting that it allows researchers to test human-like cognitive impairments in animal models.

Summary

The Bussey-Saksida Touch Screen Operant Conditioning Chamber has become a widely used tool in behavioral neuroscience, offering an advanced platform for investigating cognitive functions such as learning, memory, attention, and decision-making. Unlike traditional operant conditioning chambers, which rely on levers and nose pokes, this touch screen-based system allows for more complex cognitive tasks that parallel those used in human psychological assessments. Researchers have used this apparatus across a variety of domains, including neuropsychology, pharmacology, and neurodegenerative disease models.

References

Bari, A., Theobald, D. E. H., Caprioli, D., Mar, A. C., Aidoo-Micah, A., Dalley, J. W., & Robbins, T. W. (2015). Dissociable effects of noradrenaline and dopamine lesions on probabilistic learning and reversal in the rat. Journal of Neuroscience, 35(3), 1636–1646.

Bussey, T. J., Saksida, L. M., & Rothblat, L. A. (2012). Dissecting cognitive function in rodent models of schizophrenia using the touchscreen testing method. Neuropharmacology, 62(3), 1351–1361.

Graybeal, C., Feyder, M., Schulman, E., Saksida, L. M., Bussey, T. J., & Brigman, J. L. (2014). The touchscreen operant platform for assessing executive function in mice. Nature Protocols, 9(11), 2738–2752.

Heath, C. J., Bussey, T. J., & Saksida, L. M. (2016). Motivational assessment in mice using the touchscreen operant platform. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 10, 126.

Horner, A. E., Heath, C. J., Hvoslef-Eide, M., Kent, B. A., Kim, C. H., Bussey, T. J., & Saksida, L. M. (2013). The touchscreen operant platform for testing learning and memory in rats and mice. Nature Protocols, 8(10), 1961–1984.

Kamin, D., Sachs, B. D., & Sawa, A. (2017). The impact of dopamine depletion on decision-making and learning in Parkinson’s disease models. Behavioural Brain Research, 332, 128–139.

Mar, A. C., Horner, A. E., Nilsson, S. R., Kent, B. A., Kim, C. H., & Saksida, L. M. (2013). Progressive cognitive decline in a model of Alzheimer’s disease: A touchscreen-based assessment. Brain Research, 1527, 108–120.

Talpos, J. C., McTighe, S. M., Dias, R., Saksida, L. M., & Bussey, T. J. (2010). Trial-unique, delayed nonmatching-to-location (TUNL): A novel touchscreen-based automated task for assessing working memory in rats. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 191(2), 199–209.