Conditioned Place Preference Gong 1997
Behavioral testing apparatus for evaluating conditioned place preference and aversion responses in laboratory animals using standardized spatial conditioning protocols.
Louise Corscadden, PhD
Director of Science · ConductScience
Ask Louise about Conditioned Place Preference Gong 1997 fit, setup, configuration, or quote prep.
Already working with us? Sign in to connect this with My Scientist.
Key Specifications
Full details →- Model fit
- Mouse, Rat
- SKU family
- CS-958292
- Sizing
- 65.0 x 36.0 x 27.0 cm
- Ordering
- Online checkout and quote request available
- Category
- Behavioral Mazes
- Build notes
- Confirm accessories, station layout, and support needs before purchase
The Conditioned Place Preference apparatus based on Gong 1997 methodology provides researchers with a standardized behavioral testing system for evaluating the rewarding or aversive properties of pharmacological agents, environmental stimuli, or experimental conditions. This paradigm measures an animal's learned preference for spatial locations associated with specific treatments by quantifying time spent in distinct chamber compartments during drug-free test sessions.
The system enables investigation of motivational states, drug reward mechanisms, and conditioned learning processes through controlled environmental conditioning protocols. Researchers can assess both conditioned place preference (indicating rewarding properties) and conditioned place aversion (indicating aversive properties) by analyzing spatial distribution patterns and locomotor activity during test phases.
How It Works
The conditioned place preference paradigm operates on principles of classical conditioning where animals learn to associate environmental cues with internal physiological states. During conditioning phases, subjects receive treatments (drug administration, environmental manipulation, or experimental procedures) in one distinct chamber compartment while receiving control treatments in an alternative compartment with different visual, tactile, or olfactory characteristics.
The apparatus typically consists of multiple chambers with distinguishable environmental features such as wall patterns, floor textures, or lighting conditions. Animals are allowed to freely explore the entire apparatus during habituation and test sessions, with movement patterns and time allocation recorded through automated tracking systems or manual observation protocols.
Preference is quantified by measuring the proportion of time spent in each compartment during drug-free test sessions compared to baseline preferences. Increased time in treatment-paired chambers indicates conditioned place preference (suggesting rewarding properties), while decreased time indicates conditioned place aversion (suggesting aversive properties). This methodology provides objective behavioral readouts of subjective motivational states and drug effects.
Features & Benefits
Behavioral Construct
- Place Conditioning
- Spatial Learning
- Reward Learning
- Aversive Learning
- Drug Preference
- Motivational State
Automation Level
- manual
Research Domain
- Addiction Research
- Anxiety and Depression
- Behavioral Pharmacology
- Learning and Memory
- Neuroscience
- Pain Research
Species
- Mouse
- Rat
Compatible Tracking Software
- ConductVision
Weight
- 6.06 kg
Dimensions
- L: 65.0 mm
- W: 36.0 mm
- H: 27.0 mm
| Feature | This Product | Typical Alternative | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chamber Configuration | Multi-compartment design with removable barriers following Gong 1997 specifications | Basic two-chamber systems often lack standardized environmental cue protocols | Enables flexible conditioning schedules and supports established literature protocols for reliable cross-study comparisons. |
| Environmental Cue System | Configurable visual, tactile, and olfactory stimulus options | Fixed environmental features limit experimental flexibility | Allows optimization of discrimination learning for different species and experimental conditions. |
| Protocol Standardization | Based on validated Gong 1997 methodology with established parameters | Custom apparatus designs often lack literature validation | Provides direct comparability with published research and established behavioral protocols. |
| Data Collection Integration | Compatible with automated video tracking and manual scoring systems | Some models require proprietary software or hardware interfaces | Supports existing laboratory analysis systems without requiring additional specialized software investments. |
This apparatus provides standardized conditioned place preference testing capabilities with flexible environmental configurations and established protocol validation. The design supports both manual observation and automated tracking integration for comprehensive behavioral analysis.
Practical Tips
Validate chamber dimensions and environmental cue distinctiveness before beginning experimental series to ensure consistent spatial parameters.
Why: Standardized spatial relationships are critical for reliable conditioned place preference measurement and cross-experiment comparability.
Implement counterbalanced designs assigning treatments randomly to different chambers across subjects to control for inherent chamber preferences.
Why: Eliminates potential confounds from apparatus asymmetries or environmental biases that could affect preference measurements.
Record both spatial preference and locomotor activity measures to distinguish treatment effects on preference from general activity changes.
Why: Many pharmacological treatments affect general locomotion, which can confound spatial preference interpretation if not controlled.
Clean all surfaces with ethanol solution between subjects and allow complete evaporation to eliminate olfactory conditioning cues.
Why: Residual odors from previous subjects can create unintended conditioning stimuli that affect subsequent preference measurements.
If animals show minimal chamber exploration, reduce session duration or modify environmental lighting to encourage natural exploratory behavior.
Why: Adequate exploration of both chambers is essential for establishing baseline preferences and detecting conditioning effects.
Ensure barrier mechanisms operate smoothly and cannot trap or injure animals during transitions between conditioning and test phases.
Why: Mechanical safety is essential for animal welfare and prevents stress-related confounds in behavioral measurements.
Setup Guide
What’s in the Box
- Main apparatus assembly with multiple chambers (typical)
- Removable barrier/door system (typical)
- Environmental cue inserts or panels (typical)
- Assembly hardware and mounting components (typical)
- User manual with protocol guidelines (typical)
- Cleaning and maintenance instructions (typical)
Warranty
ConductScience provides standard manufacturer warranty coverage with technical support for setup, calibration, and troubleshooting assistance to ensure optimal performance in research applications.
Compliance
What conditioning schedule is recommended for establishing robust place preferences?
Most protocols utilize 4-8 conditioning sessions with alternating treatment/control days, though optimal scheduling depends on drug half-life, species, and experimental objectives. Consult established literature for compound-specific protocols.
How should baseline preferences be handled if animals show strong initial chamber bias?
Use counterbalanced design assigning treatments to initially preferred or non-preferred chambers across subjects, or implement unbiased protocols with initially neutral chambers for all subjects.
What is the recommended duration for conditioning and test sessions?
Conditioning sessions typically range from 15-60 minutes depending on treatment duration, while test sessions are commonly 15-20 minutes to capture preference without habituation effects.
How can locomotor activity be controlled for when analyzing place preference data?
Record total distance traveled and implement activity-dependent analysis methods, or use relative preference ratios rather than absolute time measures to control for treatment effects on general activity levels.
What environmental cues provide the most effective discrimination between compartments?
Combinations of visual patterns, floor textures, and wall colors typically provide robust discrimination, though species-specific sensory capabilities should guide cue selection for optimal conditioning strength.
How should apparatus cleaning be managed between subjects to prevent olfactory cues?
Use ethanol-based cleaning solutions between all sessions, allow complete drying, and consider randomizing chamber assignments to minimize any residual olfactory conditioning effects.
Have a question about this product?
Have a question? Just ask.
Send it over and we'll email you a personalized answer — no call, no scheduling.
Prefer to talk it through?
Accessories
Enhance your setup with compatible accessories
Frequently Bought Together
