Five Choice Serial Reaction Time Task (5CSRTT) - Behavioral Mazes
1 / 3
Behavioral Mazes

Five Choice Serial Reaction Time Task (5CSRTT)

SKU CS-958344-02
$6,990.00
Unit: Each
IncludesStandard Care

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

Species SKU CS-958344-02
$6,990.00
Unit: Each
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.

Papers that mention the five-choice serial reaction time task

From 2021 to 2025, 103 animal research papers mentioned the five-choice serial reaction time task. The count covers the test on any apparatus, not only this one.

Key Specifications

Full details →
Nose Poke Apertures
5
Shock Current Range
0.1 to 4.0 mA in 0.1 mA steps
Mouse Grid Rod Diameter
3mm
Mouse Grid Spacing
5mm
Rat Grid Rod Diameter
6mm
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)
Category: Behavioral Mazes
Need Help? Visit our Support CenterKnowledge base, order lookup, and ticket support

Track rodents with ConductVision

ConductVision is our video-tracking software. Record your sessions on video, and it scores standard rodent tests, such as those listed below.

Examples of tests it scores

To check whether ConductVision scores your protocol in this apparatus, ask in your quote request.

Add ConductVision to your quote

ConductVision

$1,490 per year

A 5-year license is $3,990 in total.

Results export as CSV files.

Request the free ConductVision demo for WindowsSchedule a demo
Ask a question

Have a question? Just ask.

Send it over and we'll email you a personalized answer, with no call or 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, with 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

Video Tracking Cameras
Video Tracking Cameras
From $450.00
Choose options
Total: $0.00

Replacement Parts & Consumables

Automated Pellet Dispenser - Behavioral Mazes
Automated Pellet Dispenser
$1,295.00
Total: $0.00

Frequently Bought Together

Video Tracking Cameras
Video Tracking Cameras
From $450.00
Choose options
Total: $0.00

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

Analyze output

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

5-Choice Serial Reaction Time Analyzer ->

§ 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.

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

3.1 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.

§ 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

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

Background references

6 selected methods and validation studies of the 5-Choice Serial Reaction Time Task, from any lab.

  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