Behavioral Mazes

Five Choice Serial Reaction Time Task (5CSRTT)

SKU CS-958344
$6,990.00
IncludesStandard care

Operant conditioning chamber for measuring attention, impulse control, and executive function in rodents through five-choice spatial discrimination tasks.

Species SKU CS-958344
$6,990.00
Scientist guidance
Louise Corscadden, PhD, Director of Science

Louise Corscadden, PhD

Director of Science · ConductScience

Ask Louise about Five Choice Serial Reaction Time Task (5CSRTT) fit, setup, configuration, or quote prep.

Key Specifications

Full details →
Model fit
['Conductor', 'ConductVision']
SKU family
CS-958344
Sizing
Mouse 5CSRTT: Aperature Dimension: 1.3 x 1.2 x 1.2 cm width x height x depth, 1 cm above the floor; Interior Dimension: 20 x 20 x 25 cm; Rat CSRTT: Aperture dimension: 2.8 x 2.8 x 2.2 cm width x height x depth, 2 cm above the floor; Interior Dimension: 30 x 25 x 30 cm (width x depth x height)
Ordering
Online checkout and quote request available
Category
Behavioral Mazes
Build notes
Sound-proof insulation material
Category: Behavioral Mazes
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

Replacement Parts & Consumables

Total: $0.00

Frequently Bought Together

Total: $450.00

Creator Insights

Trevor W. RobbinsCo-developed the 5-choice serial reaction time task (1983)University of Cambridge

About the Creator

Trevor W. Robbins is Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Cambridge, where he has spent most of his career in the Department of Psychology. With Marco Carli, Jeffrey Evenden and Barry Everitt he developed the five-choice serial reaction time task in 1983 to probe sustained visual attention and impulsivity in rodents. His research centers on fronto-striatal circuits and the neuropharmacology of attention, compulsivity and executive function, and he co-founded the Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute at Cambridge. The five-choice task has become one of the most widely used preclinical paradigms in attention and addiction neuroscience.

To view Trevor W. Robbins’s publications, visit PubMed.

Are you Trevor W. Robbins? 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 paper
  1. Carli, M., Robbins, T. W., Evenden, J. L., & Everitt, B. J. (1983). Effects of lesions to ascending noradrenergic neurones on performance of a 5-choice serial reaction task in rats. Behavioural Brain Research, 9(3), 361–380. doi:10.1016/0166-4328(83)90138-9

Use this apparatus with

The complete 5-Choice Serial Reaction Time Task workflow

Track behavior

No exact ConductVision 5-choice page is currently published. Nose-poke responses and latencies are normally logged by the chamber aperture sensors rather than overhead tracking; keep this as a roadmap gap.

Supporting page not yet built

Run protocol

No exact ConductMaze 5-choice protocol page is currently published. Training-stage progression, stimulus-duration reduction, and ITI schedules are normally configured on the operant controller; keep this as a roadmap gap.

Supporting page not yet built

Analyze output

Summarize percent accuracy, omissions, premature and perseverative responses, and correct-response latency with quality-control flags.

5-Choice Serial Reaction Time Analyzer ->

Configuration considerations

Common 5-Choice Serial Reaction Time Task 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 product5-aperture wall

Standard 5-Choice Chamber

Operant chamber with a curved five-aperture stimulus wall, food magazine, and house light

Standard configuration for sustained visual attention, reporting accuracy, omissions, and premature responses as brief light stimuli appear in one of five apertures.

Quote

Request Quote
BuyableMouse or rat

Species-Scaled Chamber

Aperture size, spacing, and magazine height scaled for mouse or rat body size

Aperture spacing and poke-detection geometry change response mechanics, so the stimulus wall should match the species and reach of the cohort being tested.

Quote

View options ->
SpecialtyChallenge variants

Attentional-Challenge Kit

Variable stimulus duration, variable ITI, and distractor-light modules for probe sessions

Best when the question is the limit of attentional capacity rather than baseline accuracy, using short stimuli, variable ITIs, or distractors to stress sustained attention and impulse control.

Quote

Request automation help

§ 1

Introduction

The 5-Choice Serial Reaction Time Task (5-CSRTT) measures sustained visual attention and response control by requiring a rodent to detect a brief light in one of five apertures and respond there for reinforcement. Carli and colleagues developed the task to dissociate attentional from motor and motivational deficits after ascending noradrenergic lesions. 1

Beyond accuracy, the task yields separable indices of behaviour: omissions track engagement, premature responses index impulsivity, and perseverative responses index compulsivity. This separation has made the 5-CSRTT a standard assay in the behavioural pharmacology and functional neurochemistry of attention. 1

Food restriction and motivation, stimulus duration and inter-trial interval, training stage, and locomotor state all change accuracy and latency independent of attention. A defensible protocol fixes the stimulus and ITI parameters, records training stage, monitors body weight under restriction, and reads omissions and latency alongside accuracy. 1

§ 2

Methods

2.1 Procedure

Staged acquisition to a fixed stimulus duration and ITI, with accuracy, omission, and premature-response scoring under controlled motivation.

Pre-test setup

  1. 1.Food restriction and habituation: Establish a controlled feeding schedule and habituate animals to the chamber and food magazine so responding reflects attention rather than novelty or hunger extremes.
  2. 2.Magazine and poke training: Train magazine entries and aperture nose-pokes for reinforcement before any stimulus is introduced, so later sessions measure attention rather than instrumental learning.
  3. 3.Stage the difficulty: Reduce stimulus duration in stages across training and fix the final stimulus duration and inter-trial interval before collecting test data.
  4. 4.Define response windows: Set the limited-hold and ITI windows that classify correct, incorrect, premature, and omitted responses in advance so scoring is identical across groups.

Trial sequence

  1. 1.Initiate the trial: Begin each trial after a fixed ITI following a magazine entry, with all apertures dark.
  2. 2.Present the stimulus: Illuminate one of five apertures briefly and record a correct response as a nose-poke in the lit aperture within the limited hold.1
  3. 3.Classify the response: Score responses in an unlit aperture as incorrect, no response as an omission, and a response during the ITI before the stimulus as premature.3
  4. 4.Deliver reinforcement: Reinforce correct responses at the magazine and log correct-response latency and magazine latency for each trial.
  5. 5.Clean between subjects: Run the planned trials, then clean the chamber and apertures to remove odor and food residue before the next subject.

Critical methodological constraints

  • Motivation and restriction. Body weight under food restriction sets baseline responding. Over- or under-restriction changes omissions and latency independent of attention; monitor and report weight.3
  • Stimulus and ITI parameters. Stimulus duration and ITI define task difficulty. Pooling sessions run with different parameters confounds attentional load; fix and report them.2
  • Training stage. Accuracy rises across staged training. A single session can confound attention with task acquisition; test only at a stable, pre-defined criterion stage.1
  • Locomotor confound. General hyper- or hypo-activity changes premature responses and omissions. Read these indices together so a motor change is not read as an attentional one.

2.2 Measurement & Analysis

Core 5-CSRTT endpoints separating attention, impulsivity, compulsivity, and processing speed, with engagement quality control.

Accuracy

Attention

Percent correct of responses made (correct / (correct + incorrect)), the primary index of sustained visual attention.1

Omissions

Engagement and QC

Trials with no response within the limited hold, indexing engagement and flagging motivational or motor problems.3

Premature Responses

Impulsivity

Responses during the ITI before the stimulus appears, the standard index of waiting impulsivity.2

Perseverative Responses

Compulsivity

Repeated responses after a correct choice has been registered, indexing compulsive or perseverative responding.

Correct-Response Latency

Processing speed

Time from stimulus onset to a correct response, indexing detection and processing speed independent of accuracy.

+ Additional metrics: incorrect-response latency, magazine latency, trials completed, reinforcers earned, body weight under restriction, and per-session apparatus notes.

2.3 choice-accuracy fraction (analysis)

A compact fraction of made responses that were correct.

Inline calculator

Type the values your tracker recorded.

Full calculator with 95% CI ->
Accuracy

84.0%

Formula: correct responses / (correct responses + incorrect responses) x 100. Interpret with omissions, premature responses, and latency because high accuracy paired with high omissions can reflect disengagement rather than intact attention. 1

2.4 sample-size planning

Estimate the N per group needed to detect a literature-anchored attentional 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 attentional effect at the endpoint you plan to report. Override the defaults with your own pilot numbers.

Lesion vs control rat tested at a fixed stimulus duration; representative magnitudes from Carli et al. (1983).1

Cohen's d

1.89

N per group at 80% power

5

Total N

10

With attrition cushion

12

At 70% / 90% power

4 / 6

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 5-choice serial reaction time studies.

Figure 1 · 5-Choice Serial Reaction Time Task publications by year (PubMed)

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

2000201020202026 to date: 8 papers

Total in PubMed: 677 papers. PubMed snapshot taken 2026-09-25.

Figure 2 · Methods co-occurring with 5-Choice Serial Reaction Time Task (last 12 months)

Share of recent 5-Choice Serial Reaction Time Task papers in PubMed that also mention each method.

3.2 Sample apparatus output

Representative output from a 5-CSRTT session at a fixed stimulus duration and ITI.

Table 1 · Per-animal 5-Choice Serial Reaction Time Task scoring output

AnimalGroupAccuracyOmissionsPrematureLatency
FC5-001Control87%5110.9 s
FC5-002Control84%7131.0 s
FC5-003Control86%6120.8 s
FC5-004Lesion69%21271.4 s
FC5-005Lesion67%23291.5 s
FC5-006Lesion70%20281.3 s

Synthetic example for illustration only. Read accuracy together with omissions, premature responses, and latency before interpreting an attentional difference.

3.3 Recent findings (PubMed)

  • Functional Dissociation of Anterior Cingulate Cortex Excitatory and Inhibitory Neurons in Sustained Attention and Impulse Control.

    Tan Y, Li R, Kong Z, et al.. Neurosci Bull. 2026 Sep 12.

    Cognitive control, which is essential for goal-directed behavior, depends on the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC); however, the distinct roles of excitatory and inhibitory neurons remain unclear.

  • Inhibited oligodendrogenesis impairs attention and motivation in adult mice regardless of repeated mild traumatic brain injury.

    Gazdzinski LM, Mak J, Mellerup M, et al.. Front Behav Neurosci. 2026.

    The brain's white matter is responsible for communication across the brain and because attention relies on coordinated communication among distributed brain networks, white matter dysfunction may contribute to attentional impairment.

  • Protective role of hemokinin-1 against age-dependent spatial memory and attention decline in mice.

    Tajti BT, Kepe E, Simon DV, et al.. Geroscience. 2026 Aug 12.

    Age-related cognitive decline is a major social and medical challenge, but its mechanisms remain poorly understood; prevention and therapy are unsatisfactory.

  • The effect of sensory deprivation and mutant gene dosage on seizures and sustained attention in a mouse model of absence epilepsy.

    Ortiz E, Yang R, Sonesra A, et al.. Epilepsy Behav. 2026 Apr.

    Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a frequent comorbidity in epilepsy, particularly absence epilepsy, but the mechanistic links between these conditions remain poorly understood.

  • Impulsivity and attentional dysfunction in DAT-AAA knock-in mice.

    Fitzpatrick CM, McGirr JC, Petersen A, et al.. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2026 Mar 20.

    Aberrant dopaminergic signaling is implicated in the core symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), including dysregulated attention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity.

  • Electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve improves amyloid pathology in delirium superimposed on dementia.

    Song C, Wu PY, Huffman WJ, et al.. Bioelectron Med. 2026 Jan 16.

    BACKGROUND: Delirium and delirium superimposed on dementia (DSD) are common complications affecting patients suffering from ongoing neurodegenerative pathologies. Peripheral surgical trauma can trigger neuroinflammation and ensuing DSD via mechanisms that remain poorly understood.

View all 677 matching papers on PubMed →

§ 4

Discussion

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

4.1 Common confounds

Variables that can shift 5-Choice Serial Reaction Time Task results apart from the effect under study.

Food restriction and motivation

Body weight under restriction sets baseline responding. Over- or under-restriction changes omissions and latency independent of attention, so weight must be monitored and reported.

Stimulus duration and ITI

These parameters define task difficulty and the rate of premature responses. Pooling sessions run with different settings confounds attentional load across conditions.

Training stage

Accuracy rises across staged training, so a single session can confound attention with task acquisition unless animals are tested at a stable criterion stage.

Satiety

Within-session satiety reduces responding and inflates omissions and latency late in a session, mimicking an attentional decline. Standardize session length and pre-session feeding.

Locomotor confound

General hyper- or hypo-activity shifts premature responses and omissions. Reading the indices together prevents a motor change being scored as an attentional one.

Confound checklist

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

Preview exported markdown
## 5-Choice Serial Reaction Time Task — methods controls

Confounds controlled in this protocol:

- **Food restriction and motivation.** Body weight under restriction sets baseline responding. Over- or under-restriction changes omissions and latency independent of attention, so weight must be monitored and reported.
- **Stimulus duration and ITI.** These parameters define task difficulty and the rate of premature responses. Pooling sessions run with different settings confounds attentional load across conditions.
- **Training stage.** Accuracy rises across staged training, so a single session can confound attention with task acquisition unless animals are tested at a stable criterion stage.
- **Satiety.** Within-session satiety reduces responding and inflates omissions and latency late in a session, mimicking an attentional decline. Standardize session length and pre-session feeding.
- **Locomotor confound.** General hyper- or hypo-activity shifts premature responses and omissions. Reading the indices together prevents a motor change being scored as an attentional one.

4.2 Construct validity caveats

The 5-CSRTT is strongest when stimulus duration, ITI, training stage, and restriction level are fixed and reported before testing. Accuracy alone is a screening signal; a specific attentional effect is most defensible when accuracy, omissions, premature responses, and latency move in an interpretable pattern across the same cohort. 1

4.3 Special considerations

How do I tell attention from impulsivity?

Accuracy and omissions index attention and engagement, while premature responses index waiting impulsivity. Reading them together separates a true attentional change from impulsive responding that lowers measured accuracy.

Which probe stresses attention most?

Shortening the stimulus duration or adding a distractor probe taxes sustained attention, while lengthening the ITI taxes impulse control. Choose the probe that matches the construct you are testing and pre-register it.

How should I handle food restriction?

Use a controlled feeding schedule that holds body weight within a defined band, monitor weight across sessions, and report it. Restriction that is too severe or too mild changes omissions and latency independent of attention.

4.4 Current directions

Quarterly editorial review of emerging 5-Choice Serial Reaction Time Task methodology. Q2 2026

Methods

Parameter reporting standards

Reporting stimulus duration, ITI, limited hold, and training stage is increasingly expected so attentional load is comparable across labs and chamber models.

Emerging

Automated response logging

Aperture sensors and software logging capture premature and perseverative responses and latencies consistently, reducing observer burden across long sessions.

Methods

Construct-validity batteries

Pairing the 5-CSRTT with selected translational task batteries is used to anchor accuracy, impulsivity, and processing speed to defined cognitive constructs.

Emerging

Variable-challenge probe sessions

Short-stimulus, variable-ITI, and distractor probes are added to baseline training to map the limits of attentional capacity within one cohort.

§ 5

References

6 selected methods and validation references for 5-Choice Serial Reaction Time Task.

  1. Carli M, Robbins TW, Evenden JL, Everitt BJ. Effects of lesions to ascending noradrenergic neurones on performance of a 5-choice serial reaction task in rats: implications for theories of dorsal noradrenergic bundle function based on selective attention and arousal. Behav Brain Res. 1983;9(3):361-380. doi:10.1016/0166-4328(83)90138-9
  2. Robbins TW. The 5-choice serial reaction time task: behavioural pharmacology and functional neurochemistry. Psychopharmacology. 2002;163(3-4):362-380. doi:10.1007/s00213-002-1154-7
  3. Bari A, Dalley JW, Robbins TW. The application of the 5-choice serial reaction time task for the assessment of visual attentional processes and impulse control in rats. Nat Protoc. 2008;3(5):759-767. doi:10.1038/nprot.2008.41
  4. Dalley JW, Cardinal RN, Robbins TW. Prefrontal executive and cognitive functions in rodents: neural and neurochemical substrates. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2004;28(7):771-784. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.09.006
  5. Lustig C, Kozak R, Sarter M, et al. CNTRICS final animal model task selection: control of attention. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013;37(9 Pt B):2099-2110. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.05.009
  6. Higgins GA, Silenieks LB. Rodent test of attention and impulsivity: the 5-choice serial reaction time task. Curr Protoc Pharmacol. 2017;78:5.49.1-5.49.34. doi:10.1002/cpph.27
Five Choice Serial Reaction Time Task (5CSRTT)
Five Choice Serial Reaction Time Task (5CSRTT)
$6,990.00
Added to quoteView Quote