The conditioned place preference chamber is a widely utilized tool for investigating the reinforcing effects of various stimuli, including natural and experimental ones.
It offers various combinations of floor designs and visual cues to tailor the testing environment. In this setup, subjects can move freely between two compartments: one where they were conditioned with specific cues and another with neutral or different cues. These cues serve as visual reinforcements. The chamber is designed for both biased and unbiased conditioned place preference assessments. A removable door (not depicted) can isolate the subject in one compartment. During preference testing, this door is removed, allowing the subject to explore both compartments to determine their preference. Visual patterned inserts are sandwiched between a clear acrylic interior layer and the outer grey layer, protecting from general wear and tear. Optional Standing Inserts are supplied for spatial place preference procedures. Please request separately.
Director of Science · ConductScience
Ask Louise about Conditioned Place Preference fit, setup, configuration, or quote prep.
Already working with us? Sign in to connect this with My Scientist.
“Reward behaviour is regulated by the strength of hippocampus–nucleus accumbens synapses”
The ability of optogenetic potentiation to induce CPP was evaluated using a three chamber CPP arena (Maze Engineers), which consisted of two chambers distinguishable by visual cues and a smaller chamber connecting the two rooms.
Maze Engineers, the maker named in the paper, is part of ConductScience.
Last counted
From 2021 to 2025, 1,078 animal research papers mentioned conditioned place preference. The count covers the test on any apparatus, not only this one.
These IDs come from the Measurement Method Ontology (MMO) and NCBI Taxonomy. Use them in data records and methods sections.
MMO:0000592NCBITaxon:10090 NCBITaxon:10116 | Mouse | Rat |
|---|---|
| Acrylic | Acrylic |
| Easy clean with 70% Ethanol | Easy clean with 70% Ethanol |
| No odors | No odors |
| Total (cm): Width 46 x Depth 27 x Height 30 | Total (cm): Width 86 x Depth 47 x Height 40 |
| Compartments (cm): Width 20 x Depth 18 x Height 30 | Compartments (cm): Width 40 x Depth 34 x Height 40 |
| Corridor (cm): Width 20 x Depth 7 x Height 30 | Corridor (cm): Width 25 x Depth 13 x Height 40 |
| Doors (cm): Width 8 x Height 30 | Doors (cm): Width 10 x Height 40 |
| Double walls: grey exterior, clear interior | Double walls: grey exterior, clear interior |
| Model | SKU | Listed price | Status | Shipping box |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mouse | ME-4403 | $1,890.00 | Available | 55.88 × 45.72 × 38.1 cm |
| Rat | ME-4404 | $2,290.00 | Available | 65.0 × 36.0 × 27.0 cm |
Specifications, models, materials, and operating envelopes
No Q&A yet. Have a question? Ask below.
Each paper below used this product. Under each title is the paper’s own sentence naming the equipment it used.
Conditioned place preference (CPP). The task consisted of one session per day for eight days in a conditioning box with two visually distinct chambers, one with grey walls and smooth floor and one with checkered walls and textured floor. A wall with a center pass separated the chambers (Maze Engineers, Skokie, IL).
CPA took place over 5 days using an arena comprised of two chambers, distinguishable by visual cues (stripes/dots on the chamber wall), connected by a central corridor (MazeEngineers) (Figure 1a).
The CPP apparatus (Maze Engineers) consisted of two distinct chambers (34 × 25 cm) separated by a neutral middle compartment (6 × 25 cm).
The ability of optogenetic potentiation to induce CPP was evaluated using a three chamber CPP arena (Maze Engineers), which consisted of two chambers distinguishable by visual cues and a smaller chamber connecting the two rooms.
ConductVision is our video-tracking software. Record your sessions on video, and it reports the measures listed below.
This test needs the Advanced Rodent Module, an add-on to the ConductVision license.
A 5-year license is $3,990 in total.
The Advanced Rodent Module runs on this license. On its own, the license scores standard tests such as the open field, the elevated plus maze, the Y-maze and the Morris water maze. Results export as CSV files.
A 5-year module license is $3,990 in total, the same as the 5-year base license.
Send it over and we'll email you a personalized answer, with no call or scheduling.
Prefer to talk it through?
Enhance your setup with compatible accessories
Creator Insights
Ronald F. Mucha and Derek van der Kooy, working at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, published companion 1982 Brain Research papers that became foundational references for conditioned place preference (CPP) as a model of learned reinforcement. They showed that rats reliably prefer environments paired with reinforcing stimuli, used receptor-blocking controls to verify specificity, and demonstrated that the paradigm captures both preference and aversion. CPP has diffuse antecedents in the place-learning literature, but this work provided the validation that made it a mainstream motivation-neuroscience assay; Bardo and Bevins later wrote its most-cited methodological review (2000). CPP is now widely used to study associative learning, reinforcement, and avoidance.
To view Ronald F. Mucha’s publications, visit PubMed.
Are you Ronald F. Mucha? to review your photo and bio, and find out how to submit Creator Insights.
ConductScience celebrates method creators: researchers who, through rigorous and often ingenious experiments, develop the tools that reveal how the brain and body work. These are real scientific discoveries that become everyday instruments for the labs that follow.
Use this apparatus with
Pre-test bias measurement, biased versus unbiased designs, conditioning session schedules, and test-phase scoring of paired-zone time and zone transitions.
ConductMaze Conditioned Place Preference Protocol ->Summarize CPP score, paired-zone time, pre-test bias, locomotor activity, and zone transitions with quality-control flags.
Conditioned Place Preference Analyzer ->§ 1
Conditioned Place Preference measures the reward or aversion value an animal assigns to a context by recording how long it later spends in a chamber previously paired with a reinforcer or a psychostimulant exposure versus a chamber paired with a neutral state. Tzschentke catalogued how this Pavlovian context-conditioning design became the dominant preclinical reward readout over recent decades. 1
During conditioning, one distinct chamber is paired with the reinforcer and the other with a neutral control, and on a drug-free test day the animal explores freely. The CPP score, the difference between paired-zone and unpaired-zone time, indexes the learned association. Bardo and Bevins detailed what the paradigm adds to and where it differs from operant self-administration. 1
Initial chamber bias, cue distinctiveness, locomotor changes, the number of conditioning sessions, and handling consistency all shift zone time independent of true reward association. A defensible protocol measures pre-test bias, chooses a biased or unbiased design accordingly, holds cue contrast constant, and reports locomotor activity as a separate channel. 1
§ 2
Pre-test bias measurement, balanced conditioning sessions, and drug-free test-phase scoring of paired-zone time with a locomotor control.
Critical methodological constraints
Core conditioned-place-preference endpoints for reward association and quality control.
CPP Score
Reward association
Paired-Zone Time
Conditioned preference
Pre-Test Bias
Baseline control
Locomotor Activity
Confound quality control
Zone Transitions
Exploration quality control
+ Additional metrics: total distance, entries per chamber, latency to first paired-zone entry, body weight, conditioning day, and per-session apparatus notes.
A compact fraction of paired plus unpaired chamber time spent in the reinforcer-paired chamber.
Estimate the N per group needed to detect a literature-anchored reward-association effect at the endpoint you plan to report. Override the defaults with your own pilot numbers.
§ 3
Representative output from a two-chamber CPP test scored from overhead tracking.
§ 4
Limitations of the paradigm, methodological caveats, and current directions.
Variables that can shift Conditioned Place Preference results apart from the effect under study.
Animals frequently prefer one chamber before conditioning. Without a pre-test and an appropriate biased or unbiased design, the score conflates prior bias with learned association.
The chambers must differ clearly in tactile and visual cues. Weak cue contrast prevents a reliable context association and weakens the score.
A psychostimulant exposure can change activity, and altered locomotion shifts zone time independent of preference. Report locomotor activity separately.
Too few sessions give a weak association; too many can cause ceiling or extinction effects. Pre-specify and hold the session count constant across groups.
Inconsistent handling and injection stress add variance to zone time. Standardize handling, timing, and placement across all animals.
Conditioned place preference is strongest when pre-test bias, design type, cue contrast, conditioning schedule, and locomotor reporting are fixed before testing. A single CPP score is a screening signal; confirm reward-association effects with locomotor controls and a second design such as an unbiased three-chamber layout in the same cohort. 1
Measure pre-test bias first. An unbiased design assigns pairing independent of initial preference and is generally cleaner; a biased design deliberately pairs against the non-preferred chamber and needs careful interpretation.
A psychostimulant exposure can change test-day activity, which shifts zone time independent of preference. Reporting locomotor activity as its own channel lets you separate an activity artifact from a genuine context association.
Pre-specify the schedule. Too few sessions yield a weak association and too many can cause ceiling or extinction effects, so the session count should be fixed and held constant across all groups.
Quarterly editorial review of emerging Conditioned Place Preference methodology. Q2 2026
Pre-test bias measurement and explicit biased-versus-unbiased reporting improve comparability of CPP scores across labs and apparatus models.
Photobeam and overhead-tracking zone logging reduce observer burden and capture paired-zone time and transitions consistently.
Reporting and modeling test-day locomotor activity as a separate channel is increasingly expected because activity changes shift zone time independent of preference.
Place conditioning is paired with operant and avoidance paradigms to separate context association from reactive escape and motivated responding in the same cohort.
§ 5
6 selected methods and validation studies of the Conditioned Place Preference, from any lab.
