Behavioral Mazes

Conditioned Place Preference

SKU ME-4403
$1,390.00
IncludesStandard care

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.

CE MarkedBAA available
Species SKU ME-4403
$1,390.00
Scientist guidance
Louise Corscadden, PhD, Director of Science

Louise Corscadden, PhD

Director of Science · ConductScience

Ask Louise about Conditioned Place Preference fit, setup, configuration, or quote prep.

Key Specifications

Full details →
Model fit
Mouse, Rat
SKU family
CS-958416
Shipping box
65.0 x 36.0 x 27.0 cm
Ordering
Online checkout and quote request available
Category
Behavioral Mazes
Build notes
clear interior layer, grey outer layer
Category: Behavioral Mazes
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)

See our FULL citation list

Click here The conditioned place preference chamber is a paradigm widely used to explore the reinforcing effects of natural and pharmacological stimuli, including drugs of addiction. Combinations of floor and wall cues are available In this variant,  subjects are allowed to freely move between a compartment in which they were conditioned with either drug cues or neutral cues. The wall cues a (come with a maze) provide visual reinforcement This dual-chamber place preference allows for biased and unbiased conditioned place preference testing. A removable door (not shown) allows isolation into one compartment of the apparatus of the animal. Preference testing is then done by removing the door to allow the mouse to freely explore between the two compartments (as seen in the image)
  • Visual pattern inserts are sandwiched between the clear interior layer and the outer grey layer. These visual pattern inserts do not interact with the mouse directly, preserving the life of the apparatus.
  • Optional Standing Inserts (visualized) are for spatial place preference procedures. Please request separately
  • The conditioned place preference (CPP) is a widely used behavioral model which can evaluate the motivational properties such as the rewarding and aversive effects of drugs and natural substances as well.
  • A conditioned place preference (CPP) is said to occur if the animals spend considerably more time in the drug-paired compartment than the vehicle-paired compartment.
  • Rossi and Reid developed the concept of drug-paired conditioning to measure drug induce affective state (approach or avoidance behavior) as a measure of the rewarding properties of drug substances.
  • In CPP, the primary stimulus (drug) serves as an unconditioned stimulus (UCS). When it is paired with a secondary stimulus (visual or tactile cue) which acts as a conditioned stimulus (CSS), an approaching or aversive behavior for the paired environment is elicited
  • CPP continues to be very popular because of its numerous applications.
  • Classically, the CPP apparatus is of two types, namely the two-chamber design or three-chamber design.
  • The two major experimental designs used to condition animals under the influence of drugs or natural reinforcers are called the Biased and Unbiased experimental designs.
  • CPP task, whether biased or unbiased follows the timeline of Pre-test, Conditioning, and Testing Phase.

Score this test with ConductVision

ConductVision is our video-tracking software. Record your sessions on video, and it reports the measures listed below.

What it measures

Add ConductVision and the Advanced Rodent Module to your quote

This test needs the Advanced Rodent Module, an add-on to the ConductVision license.

ConductVision

$1,490 per year

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.

Request the free ConductVision demo for Windows
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

Frequently Bought Together

Total: $1,240.00

Creator Insights

Ronald F. MuchaValidated conditioned place preference as a reinforcement model (1982, with Derek van der Kooy)Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto

About the Creator

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.

Foundational papers
  1. Mucha, R. F., van der Kooy, D., O’Shaughnessy, M., & Bucenieks, P. (1982). Drug reinforcement studied by the use of place conditioning in rat. Brain Research, 243(1), 91–105. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(82)91123-4
  2. Bardo, M. T., & Bevins, R. A. (2000). Conditioned place preference: what does it add to our preclinical understanding of drug reward? Psychopharmacology, 153(1), 31–43. doi:10.1007/s002130000569

Use this apparatus with

The complete Conditioned Place Preference workflow

Configuration considerations

Common Conditioned Place Preference 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 productTwo-chamber

Conditioned Place Preference Box

Two distinct conditioning chambers with contrasting wall and floor cues and a removable central divider

Standard configuration for reward-association studies, scoring paired-zone time and CPP score as the animal freely explores chambers paired with a reinforcer or a neutral context.

Quote

Request Quote
BuyableMouse or rat

Species-Scaled CPP Box

Chamber footprint and divider height scaled for mouse or rat body size

Chamber size and cue contrast change how readily an animal forms a context association, so the box geometry should match the species and cohort being tested.

Quote

View options ->
SpecialtyThree-chamber

Three-Chamber CPP Box

Two conditioning chambers plus a neutral central chamber with automated photobeam zone logging

Best when a neutral start chamber and automated zone logging are needed to reduce handler placement bias and to record zone transitions continuously.

Quote

Request automation help

§ 1

Introduction

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

Methods

2.1 Procedure

Pre-test bias measurement, balanced conditioning sessions, and drug-free test-phase scoring of paired-zone time with a locomotor control.

Pre-test setup

  1. 1.Acclimation and handling: Habituate animals to the room and to consistent handling so test-day exploration reflects learned context association rather than novelty or handling stress.
  2. 2.Apparatus calibration: Verify chamber dimensions, wall and floor cue contrast, divider operation, and that photobeams or overhead tracking register zone entries and time reliably.
  3. 3.Pre-test and design choice: Run a drug-free pre-test to measure each animal's initial chamber bias, then choose a biased or unbiased design and assign the paired chamber before any conditioning begins.
  4. 4.Define the conditioning schedule: Fix the number of paired and unpaired conditioning sessions, session duration, and the order of pairings so all groups receive a balanced, pre-specified schedule.

Trial sequence

  1. 1.Confine for conditioning: On paired sessions, confine the animal to the reinforcer-paired chamber with the divider in place; on unpaired sessions, confine it to the neutral chamber for the same duration.3
  2. 2.Alternate pairings: Alternate paired and unpaired sessions across days per the pre-specified schedule, counterbalancing chamber assignment across the cohort.
  3. 3.Run a drug-free test: On test day, place the animal in the apparatus with the divider open and no reinforcer present, allowing free exploration of both chambers.2
  4. 4.Score zone time: Record time in the paired and unpaired zones and compute the CPP score as paired-zone minus unpaired-zone time.
  5. 5.Log locomotor and transitions: Record locomotor activity and zone transitions on the test, then clean the chambers to remove odor cues before the next subject.

Critical methodological constraints

  • Initial chamber bias. Animals often prefer one chamber before conditioning. Measure pre-test bias and select a biased or unbiased design rather than assuming neutrality.1
  • Cue distinctiveness. The two chambers must differ clearly in tactile and visual cues. Weak cue contrast prevents a reliable context association from forming.5
  • Locomotor confound. A psychostimulant exposure can change activity, and altered locomotion shifts zone time independent of preference. Report locomotor activity as a separate channel.1
  • Session number. Too few conditioning sessions yield a weak association and too many can produce ceiling or extinction effects. Pre-specify and hold the session count constant.

2.2 Measurement & Analysis

Core conditioned-place-preference endpoints for reward association and quality control.

CPP Score

Reward association

Paired-zone time minus unpaired-zone time on the drug-free test, the standard index of the learned context association.2

Paired-Zone Time

Conditioned preference

Absolute time spent in the reinforcer-paired chamber on test day, often expressed as a percentage of total session time.1

Pre-Test Bias

Baseline control

Chamber preference measured before conditioning, used to choose a biased or unbiased design and to interpret the post-conditioning score.

Locomotor Activity

Confound quality control

Distance or activity on the test session; large activity differences can shift zone time independent of true preference.

Zone Transitions

Exploration quality control

Number of crossings between chambers, a check that the animal sampled both contexts rather than remaining stationary in one.

+ Additional metrics: total distance, entries per chamber, latency to first paired-zone entry, body weight, conditioning day, and per-session apparatus notes.

2.3 paired-zone fraction (analysis)

A compact fraction of paired plus unpaired chamber time spent in the reinforcer-paired chamber.

Inline calculator

Type the values your tracker recorded.

Full calculator with 95% CI ->
Paired-zone fraction

60.0%

Formula: paired-zone time / (paired-zone time + unpaired-zone time) x 100. Interpret with pre-test bias, locomotor activity, cue contrast, and conditioning session count because a high fraction can reflect a pre-existing bias rather than a learned association. 1

2.4 sample-size planning

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.

sample-size planning

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.

Reinforcer-paired vs control context in mice; representative magnitudes from Cunningham et al. (2006) place-conditioning protocol.3

Cohen's d

1.71

N per group at 80% power

6

Total N

12

With attrition cushion

14

At 70% / 90% power

5 / 8

Methods sentence

Need ANOVA, proportions, paired design, or a power curve? Open in the full Sample-Size Calculator →

Formula: n = 2 · ((zα/2 + zβ) / d)2, where d = |μ₁ − μ₂| / σ. Assumes equal allocation, normality, and homoskedasticity. The attrition cushion inflates total N by 1 / (1 − dropout); confirm with your IACUC.

§ 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 conditioned-place-preference studies.

Figure 1 · Conditioned Place Preference publications by year (PubMed)

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

2000201020202026 to date: 203 papers

Total in PubMed: 5,378 papers. PubMed snapshot taken 2026-09-25.

Figure 2 · Methods co-occurring with Conditioned Place Preference (last 12 months)

Share of recent Conditioned Place Preference papers in PubMed that also mention each method.

3.2 Sample apparatus output

Representative output from a two-chamber CPP test scored from overhead tracking.

Table 1 · Per-animal Conditioned Place Preference scoring output

AnimalGroupPaired-zone timeUnpaired-zone timeTransitionsPaired-zone fraction
CPP-001Control305 s295 s1450.8%
CPP-002Control312 s288 s1252.0%
CPP-003Control298 s302 s1549.7%
CPP-004Reinforcer372 s228 s1362.0%
CPP-005Reinforcer388 s212 s1164.7%
CPP-006Reinforcer361 s239 s1460.2%

Synthetic example for illustration only. Pair the CPP score with pre-test bias, locomotor activity, and zone transitions before interpreting reward-association differences.

3.3 Recent findings (PubMed)

  • Single-housed, but not pair-housed, male and female rats demonstrate social conditioned place preference.

    Bensing PC, Bowers CP, Moosa I, et al.. Neurosci Lett. 2026 Sep 17.

    Understanding the factors that modulate social reward has important implications for conditions characterized by social dysfunction, including autism spectrum disorder and social anxiety disorder.

  • An excitatory projection from ventromedial hypothalamus to lateral hypothalamus mediates stress-induced reinstatement of alprazolam-conditioned place preference in male mice.

    Song Z, Li N, Song R, et al.. Eur J Pharmacol. 2026 Sep 10.

    Alprazolam (Alp) is a clinically common benzodiazepine (BZD) with a potential risk of abuse, yet the mechanisms underlying its reinstatement remain unclear.

  • The Effect of Psychedelics on Associative Learning: a Systematic Review.

    Caulfield A, Li L, Belessiotis-Richards C, et al.. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2026 Sep 6.

    Psychedelics are emerging as potential treatments for neuropsychiatric conditions, with evidence suggesting a single administration can lead to enduring behavioural changes. While the underlying putative mechanism(s) remain unclear, there is evidence supporting altered learning as a key candidate.

  • Parabrachial neuropeptide Y Y1 receptor-expressing neurons govern the sensory dimension of neuropathic pain.

    Allen HN, Nelson TS, Goldstein N, et al.. Pain. 2026 Sep 1.

    Pain perception involves complex sensory and emotional processes, yet the supraspinal circuits that sustain neuropathic pain remain incompletely understood.

  • Effects of probiotics on alcohol-conditioned behaviors and hippocampal morphology in male rats.

    Eraghi NG, Sefati N, Ghaffari MK, et al.. Food Chem Toxicol. 2026 Sep.

    Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) is a complex condition marked by physical and psychological dependence, often accompanied by lasting changes in brain regions such as the hippocampus that contribute to memory and cognitive impairments.

  • Pharmacological characterization of 4-F-3-Me-α-PVP: A novel synthetic cathinone with psychostimulant effects and abuse liability in rodents.

    Nadal-Gratacós N, Pain S, Mata S, et al.. J Psychopharmacol. 2026 Sep.

    The continual emergence of novel synthetic cathinones poses significant public health concerns due to their unpredictable pharmacological profiles and potential for abuse.

View all 5,378 matching papers on PubMed →

§ 4

Discussion

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

4.1 Common confounds

Variables that can shift Conditioned Place Preference results apart from the effect under study.

Initial chamber bias

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.

Distinct contextual cues

The chambers must differ clearly in tactile and visual cues. Weak cue contrast prevents a reliable context association and weakens the score.

Locomotor confound

A psychostimulant exposure can change activity, and altered locomotion shifts zone time independent of preference. Report locomotor activity separately.

Conditioning session number

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.

Handling consistency

Inconsistent handling and injection stress add variance to zone time. Standardize handling, timing, and placement across all animals.

Confound checklist

Tick the confounds your protocol addresses, then export a methods-paragraph blurb you can paste into your manuscript.

Preview exported markdown
## Conditioned Place Preference — methods controls

Confounds controlled in this protocol:

- **Initial chamber bias.** 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.
- **Distinct contextual cues.** The chambers must differ clearly in tactile and visual cues. Weak cue contrast prevents a reliable context association and weakens the score.
- **Locomotor confound.** A psychostimulant exposure can change activity, and altered locomotion shifts zone time independent of preference. Report locomotor activity separately.
- **Conditioning session number.** 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.
- **Handling consistency.** Inconsistent handling and injection stress add variance to zone time. Standardize handling, timing, and placement across all animals.

4.2 Construct validity caveats

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

4.3 Special considerations

Should I use a biased or unbiased design?

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.

Why report locomotor activity separately?

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.

How many conditioning sessions are enough?

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.

4.4 Current directions

Quarterly editorial review of emerging Conditioned Place Preference methodology. Q2 2026

Methods

Bias-design standardization

Pre-test bias measurement and explicit biased-versus-unbiased reporting improve comparability of CPP scores across labs and apparatus models.

Emerging

Automated zone logging

Photobeam and overhead-tracking zone logging reduce observer burden and capture paired-zone time and transitions consistently.

Methods

Locomotor covariate analysis

Reporting and modeling test-day locomotor activity as a separate channel is increasingly expected because activity changes shift zone time independent of preference.

Emerging

Multi-design reward batteries

Place conditioning is paired with operant and avoidance paradigms to separate context association from reactive escape and motivated responding in the same cohort.

§ 5

References

6 selected methods and validation references for Conditioned Place Preference.

  1. Tzschentke TM. Measuring reward with the conditioned place preference (CPP) paradigm: update of the last decade. Addict Biol. 2007;12(3-4):227-462. doi:10.1111/j.1369-1600.2007.00070.x
  2. Bardo MT, Bevins RA. Conditioned place preference: what does it add to our preclinical understanding of reward? Psychopharmacology. 2000;153(1):31-43. doi:10.1007/s002130000569
  3. Cunningham CL, Gremel CM, Groblewski PA. Drug-induced conditioned place preference and aversion in mice. Nat Protoc. 2006;1(4):1662-1670. doi:10.1038/nprot.2006.279
  4. Prus AJ, James JR, Rosecrans JA. Conditioned place preference. In: Methods of Behavior Analysis in Neuroscience. 2nd ed. 2009. PMID:21204341
  5. Huston JP, Silva MA, Topic B, Muller CP. What's conditioned in conditioned place preference? Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2013;34(3):162-166. doi:10.1016/j.tips.2013.01.004
  6. Aguilar MA, Rodriguez-Arias M, Minarro J. Neurobiological mechanisms of the reinstatement of drug-conditioned place preference. Brain Res Rev. 2009;59(2):253-277. doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2008.08.002
Conditioned Place Preference
Conditioned Place Preference
$1,390.00
Added to quoteView Quote