1 / 9

Conditioned Place Preference

$1,390.00 - $2,290.00

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.

Key Specifications

chamber_design

dual-chamber/two-chamber

conditioning_types

biased and unbiased conditioned place preference testing

visual_cues

visual pattern inserts sandwiched between layers

floor_cues

combinations of floor cues available

wall_cues

combinations of wall cues available

removable_door

allows isolation into one compartment

SKU:ME-4403

Category:Behavioral Mazes

Need Help? Visit our Support CenterKnowledge base, order lookup, and ticket support

Scientist guidance

Louise Corscadden, PhD

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.

chamber_design

dual-chamber/two-chamber

conditioning_types

biased and unbiased conditioned place preference testing

visual_cues

visual pattern inserts sandwiched between layers

floor_cues

combinations of floor cues available

wall_cues

combinations of wall cues available

removable_door

allows isolation into one compartment

optional_accessories

Standing Inserts for spatial place preference procedures

Species

Mouse
Rat

Material

clear interior layer
grey outer layer

Color

Grey

Compatible Tracking Software

ConductVision

Weight

6.06 kg

Dimensions

L: 65.0 mm
W: 36.0 mm
H: 27.0 mm

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.

Camera Gantry

$790.00

ConductVision: AI Driven Video Tracking

Total: $0.00

Video Tracking Cameras

$450.00

Total: $1,240.00

Automated Conditioned Place Preference

$5,900.00

Related Products

Conditioned Place Preference - Mouse (Custom Order)

Morris Water Maze Heater

Use this apparatus with

The complete Conditioned Place Preference workflow

Track behavior

No exact ConductVision conditioned-place-preference page is currently published. Zone time and transitions are normally captured by overhead tracking of a multi-chamber box; keep automated CPP scoring as a roadmap gap.

Supporting page not yet built

Run protocol

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 ->

Analyze output

Summarize CPP score, paired-zone time, pre-test bias, locomotor activity, and zone transitions with quality-control flags.

Conditioned Place Preference Analyzer ->

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.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.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.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.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.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.Alternate pairings — Alternate paired and unpaired sessions across days per the pre-specified schedule, counterbalancing chamber assignment across the cohort.
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.Score zone time — Record time in the paired and unpaired zones and compute the CPP score as paired-zone minus unpaired-zone time.
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.

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

Control mean (s)Treatment mean (s)Pooled SD (s)

Power (1 - β)Alpha (two-sided)

Cohen's d

1.71

Plan for 10% attrition0%15%30%

N per group at 80% power

Total N

With attrition cushion

At 70% / 90% power

5 / 8

Methods sentence

Using cpp score (s) as the primary endpoint (control μ = 20 s, treatment μ = 140 s, σ = 70 s; Cohen's d = 1.71), a two-sample t-test with α = 0.05 provides 80% power to detect this difference with n = 6 animals per group (N = 12 total; 14 accounting for 10% expected attrition). Pilot magnitudes based on Cunningham et al. (2006).

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

Formula: n = 2 · ((z_α/2 + z_β) / 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

Aggregate publication data, sample apparatus output, and recent findings from the live PubMed feed.

3.1 Publication trends

PubMed volume and co-occurring behavioral methods for conditioned-place-preference studies.

3.2 Sample apparatus output

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

Table 1 · Per-animal EPM scoring output

Download sample CSV →

Animal	Group	Paired-zone time	Unpaired-zone time	Transitions	Paired-zone fraction
CPP-001	Control	305 s	295 s	14	50.8%
CPP-002	Control	312 s	288 s	12	52.0%
CPP-003	Control	298 s	302 s	15	49.7%
CPP-004	Reinforcer	372 s	228 s	13	62.0%
CPP-005	Reinforcer	388 s	212 s	11	64.7%
CPP-006	Reinforcer	361 s	239 s	14	60.2%

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 (live PubMed feed)

Auto-curated weekly. Last refreshed 2026-06-12. Live

Jun 2026Source note
Place-conditioning methods continue to emphasize pre-test bias and biased-versus-unbiased design choice.
Static methods note aligned with Tzschentke (2007), Bardo & Bevins (2000), and Cunningham et al. (2006).
Review CPP studies for a measured pre-test bias, an explicit biased or unbiased design, constant cue contrast, and a balanced conditioning schedule before interpreting group differences in the CPP score.
Methods overviewReproducibility
Jun 2026Source note
CPP as one assay in a reward battery: pair with locomotor and operant readouts.
Static methods note aligned with Huston et al. (2013) and Aguilar et al. (2009).
A single CPP score is a screening signal. Reward-association effects are most defensible when test-day locomotor activity is reported separately and the association is confirmed with an independent design in the same cohort.
Reward batteryContext association

View all 9120matching papers on PubMed ->

§ 4

Discussion

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

4.1 Common confounds

Variables that shift Conditioned Place Preference results independent of anxiety state.

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.

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.

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.

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
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
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
Prus AJ, James JR, Rosecrans JA. Conditioned place preference. In: Methods of Behavior Analysis in Neuroscience. 2nd ed. 2009. PMID:21204341
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
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

$1,390.00 - $2,290.00

Added to quoteView Quote

Model	SKU	Listed price	Status	Dimensions
Mouse	ME-4403	$1,390.00	Available	55.88 x 45.72 x 38.1 cm
Rat	ME-4404	$2,290.00	Available	65.0 x 36.0 x 27.0 cm

Conditioned Place Preference

Louise Corscadden, PhD

Specifications

chamber_design

conditioning_types

visual_cues

floor_cues

wall_cues

removable_door

optional_accessories

Species

Material

Color

Compatible Tracking Software

Weight

Dimensions

See our FULL citation list

Have a question about this product?

Accessories

Frequently Bought Together

Upgrade Options

Related Products

The complete Conditioned Place Preference workflow

Track behavior

Run protocol

Analyze output

Common Conditioned Place Preference setup decisions

Conditioned Place Preference Box

Species-Scaled CPP Box

Three-Chamber CPP Box

Introduction

Methods

2.1 Procedure

Pre-test setup

Trial sequence

2.2 Measurement & Analysis

2.3 paired-zone fraction (analysis)

2.4 sample-size planning

Results

3.1 Publication trends

3.2 Sample apparatus output

3.3 Recent findings (live PubMed feed)

Discussion

4.1 Common confounds

Initial chamber bias

Distinct contextual cues

Locomotor confound

Conditioning session number

Handling consistency

4.2 Construct validity caveats

4.3 Special considerations

4.4 Current directions

Bias-design standardization

Automated zone logging

Locomotor covariate analysis

Multi-design reward batteries

References