Standardized acrylic tube apparatus for quantitative assessment of social dominance and hierarchy behaviors in mice and rats through controlled competitive interactions.
CE MarkedBAA available
Scientist guidance
Louise Corscadden, PhD
Director of Science · ConductScience
Ask Louise about Tube Dominance Test fit, setup, configuration, or quote prep.
The apparatus consisted of a Plexiglass tube approximately 17 inches long and 1 inch internal diameter (Maze Engineers, Skokie, IL; Spencer et al., 2005).
Maze Engineers, the maker named in the paper, is part of ConductScience.
As of , this is the only study we’ve found that used this product.
Mouse: Length 30 cm · Diameter 3.175 cm; Rat: Length: 18.9" or 48cm.; Diameter: 2" or 5.5cm -recommended for 125 - 250gr rats; Entry to Door: 7.8" or 20cm.; Distance between doors: 3.1" or 8 cm; Acrylic: 0.2" or 0.6cm thick
Ordering
Online checkout and quote request available
Category
Classic Mazes
Build notes
Confirm accessories, station layout, and support needs before purchase
The Tube Dominance Test is a standardized apparatus for assessing social hierarchy and dominance behaviors in rodents. This behavioral assay utilizes a transparent acrylic tube with controlled entry points to evaluate competitive interactions between two animals, providing quantitative measures of dominance relationships within social groups.
The apparatus features species-specific dimensions optimized for mouse and rat studies, with precise spacing between entry doors and standardized tube diameters. The test paradigm measures displacement behaviors when two animals encounter each other in the confined tube space, allowing researchers to establish dominance rankings and investigate social behavioral phenotypes in various experimental contexts.
How It Works
The tube dominance test operates on the principle of competitive displacement behavior in a spatially restricted environment. When two animals are introduced simultaneously from opposite ends of the tube, their natural territorial and competitive instincts drive behavioral interactions that reveal dominance relationships.
The standardized tube dimensions create a controlled spatial constraint where only one animal can occupy the central space comfortably. The animal that successfully displaces its opponent by forcing it to retreat through its entry point demonstrates dominant behavior. Multiple trials between pairs establish consistent dominance rankings.
The transparent acrylic construction allows for direct behavioral observation and video recording, enabling detailed analysis of interaction patterns, latency to displacement, and behavioral strategies employed during competitive encounters.
Features & Benefits
Species-specific dimensions for mice and rats
Optimized tube diameters (3.5cm mouse, 5.5cm rat) ensure appropriate spatial constraints for natural competitive behaviors in each species.
Standardized entry door spacing
Precise distances between doors (4cm mouse, 8cm rat) provide consistent spatial parameters for reproducible dominance testing protocols.
Transparent acrylic construction
Clear visibility enables detailed behavioral observation and video recording for quantitative analysis of displacement patterns.
0.6cm thick acrylic walls
Robust construction withstands repeated use while maintaining structural integrity during competitive animal interactions.
Assembly required design
Modular construction allows for easy cleaning, sterilization, and compact storage between experimental sessions.
Included storage solution
Organized storage system maintains component integrity and enables efficient laboratory space utilization.
One-year warranty coverage
Extended warranty support ensures reliable operation throughout extended research studies and multi-year experiments.
Research identifiers
These IDs come from NCBI Taxonomy. Use them in data records and methods sections.
Length: 18.9" or 48cm.; Diameter: 2" or 5.5cm -recommended for 125 - 250gr rats; Entry to Door: 7.8" or 20cm.; Distance between doors: 3.1" or 8 cm; Acrylic: 0.2" or 0.6cm thick
Notes
Mouse: (1.25 inch) -best for 30 - 70gr mice
Mouse: Entry to Door: 13cm
Mouse: Acrylic: 0.6cm thick
Mouse: Diameters also available: 2.54cm (1 inch) and 3.81cm (1.5 inch) -best for 15 - 30gr mice and 70 - 125gr mice respectively
Mouse: Please request a different diameter if required
Rat: Length: 18.9" or 48cm
Rat: Diameter: 2" or 5.5cm -recommended for 125 - 250gr rats
Rat: Entry to Door: 7.8" or 20cm
Rat: Distance between doors: 3.1" or 8 cm
Rat: Acrylic: 0.2" or 0.6cm thick
Warranty Length
1 YEAR
Storage Included
Yes
Assembly Required
Yes
Behavioral Construct
Social Dominance
Competitive Behavior
Social Hierarchy
Territorial Behavior
Displacement Behavior
Automation Level
manual
Research Domain
Aging Research
Anxiety and Depression
Behavioral Pharmacology
Neurodegeneration
Neuroscience
Social Behavior
Compatible Tracking Software
ConductVision
Shipping weight
6.06 lb
Shipping box
L: 65.0 cm
W: 36.0 cm
H: 27.0 cm
Feature
This Product
Typical Alternative
Advantage
Species-Specific Sizing
Dedicated mouse (3.5cm) and rat (5.5cm) diameter configurations
Single-size designs requiring manual scaling
Optimized dimensions ensure appropriate spatial constraints for natural competitive behaviors in each species.
Construction Material
0.6cm thick transparent acrylic construction
Thinner materials or opaque constructions
Robust walls withstand repeated use while maintaining optical clarity for behavioral observation.
Assembly Design
Modular assembly with included storage system
Fixed construction designs
Facilitates thorough cleaning, sterilization, and compact laboratory storage between sessions.
Dimensional Standardization
Precise door spacing (4cm mouse, 8cm rat) with standardized entry distances
Variable or non-standardized dimensions
Consistent spatial parameters ensure reproducible results across different research groups and studies.
This apparatus provides species-optimized dimensions with robust acrylic construction and modular assembly design. The standardized spatial parameters support reproducible dominance testing protocols across laboratory settings.
Model
Size
SKU
Listed price
Status
Shipping box
Mouse
Length 30 cm · Diameter 3.175 cm · Distance between doors 4 cm
4901
$590.00
Available
38.1 × 17.78 × 7.62 cm
Rat
Length: 18.9" or 48cm.; Diameter: 2" or 5.5cm -recommended for 125 - 250gr rats; Entry to Door: 7.8" or 20cm.; Distance between doors: 3.1" or 8 cm; Acrylic: 0.2" or 0.6cm thick
4902
$790.00
Available
48 × 36.0 × 27.0 cm
Social Behavior
Establishing dominance hierarchies within rodent colonies and measuring individual social rank positions for behavioral phenotyping studies.
Behavioral Pharmacology
Evaluating the effects of pharmacological interventions on social dominance behaviors and competitive interactions between animals.
Neuroscience
Investigating neural mechanisms underlying social dominance through correlation with neuronal activity patterns and brain imaging data.
Anxiety and Depression
Assessing social behavioral changes in anxiety and depression models, as dominance status correlates with stress-related behaviors.
Aging Research
Measuring age-related changes in social competitive behaviors and dominance establishment in aging animal models.
Neurodegeneration
Documenting social behavioral deficits in neurodegenerative disease models through quantitative dominance testing protocols.
Practical Tips
Calibration
Verify tube alignment and door spacing measurements before initial use and periodically during extended studies.
Why: Precise spatial parameters are critical for standardized behavioral responses and reproducible dominance measurements.
Maintenance
Disassemble apparatus weekly for thorough cleaning and inspect acrylic surfaces for scratches that could affect visibility.
Why: Regular maintenance prevents contamination buildup and ensures optimal optical clarity for behavioral observation.
Best Practices
Conduct habituation trials with individual animals before pairwise testing to reduce novelty effects on competitive behavior.
Why: Familiarity with the apparatus environment isolates dominance behaviors from exploration responses.
Best Practices
Randomize testing order and time intervals between trials to control for temporal effects on dominance expression.
Record multiple trials between each animal pair and analyze consistency of dominance outcomes across sessions.
Why: Statistical verification of dominance relationships requires multiple data points to distinguish stable hierarchies from random interactions.
Troubleshooting
If animals avoid entering the tube, reduce environmental stressors and ensure appropriate temperature and lighting conditions.
Why: Environmental comfort is essential for natural competitive behaviors to emerge during dominance testing.
Safety
Monitor animal interactions continuously and terminate trials if aggressive behaviors exceed normal competitive displacement.
Why: Ensuring animal welfare while maintaining scientific validity requires careful observation of behavioral escalation.
Setup Guide
Unpack and Inspect Components
Remove all acrylic components from packaging and inspect for damage. Verify presence of tube sections, connecting hardware, and assembly instructions.
Assemble Tube Apparatus
Connect tube sections according to provided assembly guide, ensuring proper alignment of entry doors and secure joining of acrylic segments.
Position Testing Setup
Place assembled apparatus on stable testing surface with adequate lighting and video recording equipment positioned for behavioral observation.
Clean and Disinfect
Thoroughly clean all surfaces with appropriate disinfectant and allow to air dry completely before introducing animals.
Conduct Habituation Trials
Allow individual animals to explore the tube apparatus alone for 5-10 minutes to reduce novelty effects during testing.
Execute Dominance Testing
Introduce paired animals simultaneously from opposite tube entrances and record displacement behaviors according to established protocols.
Clean Between Trials
Remove scent traces between trials with ethanol wipe-down to prevent olfactory bias in subsequent testing sessions.
What’s in the Box
Acrylic tube sections for assembly (typical)
Connecting hardware and fasteners (typical)
Assembly instructions and setup guide (typical)
Storage organization system
User manual with testing protocols (typical)
Warranty documentation
Warranty
ConductScience provides a one-year manufacturer warranty covering defects in materials and workmanship, with technical support available for experimental protocol optimization and apparatus maintenance.
Compliance
IACUC GuidelinesCommonly used in behavioral studies subject to institutional animal care and use committee oversight for social behavior research protocols.
ARRIVE GuidelinesSupports standardized reporting of animal research through consistent apparatus specifications and reproducible testing procedures.
References
Background reading relevant to this product:
1.Andrew E. Arrant et al. (2016) “Progranulin haploinsufficiency causes biphasic social dominance abnormalities in the tube test” Genes Brain & Behaviordoi:10.1111/gbb.12300
2.Wenyu Cao et al. (2017) “Role of early environmental enrichment on the social dominance tube test at adulthood in the rat” Psychopharmacologydoi:10.1007/s00213-017-4717-3
3.Jianping Xie et al. (2021) “The combination of living Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus, and Streptococcus improves social ranking and relieves anxiety‐like behaviors in competitive mice in a social dominance tube test” Brain and Behaviordoi:10.1002/brb3.2453
4.Nuria García-Font et al. (2022) “Ca2+ imaging of self and other in medial prefrontal cortex during social dominance interactions in a tube test” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesdoi:10.1073/pnas.2107942119
What is the recommended trial duration for dominance testing?
A
Standard protocols typically employ 3-5 minute trials with multiple repetitions between pairs to establish consistent dominance relationships, though specific durations should be optimized for individual experimental designs.
Q
How many animals can be tested simultaneously?
A
The apparatus is designed for pairwise testing of two animals per trial, with dominance rankings established through systematic testing of all possible pairs within a social group.
Q
What cleaning protocols are recommended between trials?
A
Thorough cleaning with 70% ethanol between trials removes scent traces that could influence subsequent behavioral interactions, with complete disinfection recommended between different experimental groups.
Q
Can the apparatus accommodate juvenile animals?
A
The standardized dimensions are optimized for adult animals; consult product datasheet for specific size requirements when testing juvenile or smaller animal strains.
Q
How is dominance determined from the behavioral interactions?
A
Dominance is typically scored based on which animal successfully forces its opponent to retreat through the entry door, with multiple trials establishing statistical significance of dominance relationships.
Q
What video recording setup is recommended?
A
Overhead camera positioning provides optimal visibility of displacement behaviors, with additional side-angle recording useful for detailed behavioral analysis and latency measurements.
Q
How does this compare to other dominance testing methods?
A
The tube test provides more controlled spatial constraints compared to home cage observations, offering standardized conditions for quantitative dominance assessment with reduced environmental variables.
Have a question about this product?
Each paper below used this product. Under each title is the paper’s own sentence naming the equipment it used.
Deirdre M. McCarthy, Cynthia Vied, Mia X. Trupiano et al. · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · 2024
From the methods
The apparatus consisted of a Plexiglass tube approximately 17 inches long and 1 inch internal diameter (Maze Engineers, Skokie, IL; Spencer et al., 2005).
GLGardner LindzeyIntroduced the tube test of social dominance (1961, with Winston & Manosevitz)University of Minnesota
About the Creator
Gardner Lindzey (1920–2008) was an American social and personality psychologist who held appointments at Harvard, the University of Minnesota and the University of Texas at Austin, and later directed the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford. In 1961, with Harold Winston and Martin Manosevitz, he published a brief Nature report showing that inbred mouse strains differ consistently in social dominance, measured by which mouse retreats when two are placed at opposite ends of a narrow tube. The paper established the tube test’s core scoring logic — the displaced mouse is the subordinate — and demonstrated its reliability across strains. The tube test has since become a standard assay of social hierarchy in models of autism, aggression and neurodevelopment.
To view Gardner Lindzey’s publications, visit PubMed.
Did you work with Gardner Lindzey? to suggest corrections or share material for these 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
Lindzey, G., Winston, H., & Manosevitz, M. (1961). Social dominance in inbred mouse strains. Nature, 191(4787), 474–476. doi:10.1038/191474a0
The Tube Dominance Test measures social rank by recording which of two animals forces the other to back out of a narrow tube they enter from opposite ends. Lindzey and colleagues introduced the tube contest as a simple, repeatable index of social dominance among cage-mates. 1
The core readout is the win-loss ratio across pairings, which yields a rank order within a cage and, when run as a round-robin, a near-transitive hierarchy. The test became a standard assay for the neural basis of social dominance because contest outcomes are discrete, fast to score, and stable across repeated testing. 1
Body weight, prior social experience, tube diameter, side and start bias, and fatigue from repeated pairings all change contest outcomes independent of true rank. A defensible protocol balances start sides, fixes the tube diameter, schedules round-robin pairings, and tests rank stability across days before treating the order as a hierarchy. 1
§ 2
Methods
2.1 Procedure
Round-robin tube contests with side-balancing, win and retreat scoring, and rank-stability checks.
Pre-test setup
1.Habituation: Habituate animals to walking through the empty tube from both ends so the first contest reflects social dynamics rather than novelty of the apparatus.
2.Tube calibration: Select a tube diameter that prevents animals from turning around or passing, and confirm the length and start chambers are matched at both ends.
3.Define the schedule: Plan a round-robin pairing of every animal against every cage-mate so a full rank order, not just a single pairwise result, can be derived.
4.Set scoring rules: Pre-define a win as the opponent fully backing out, and define retreats and push events so active dominance and subordination are scored separately.
Trial sequence
1.Release from opposite ends: Release the two animals simultaneously from opposite ends so they meet near the middle of the tube.
2.Record the win: Score a win for the animal that remains in the tube when its opponent fully backs out, and log the loser.2
3.Score push and retreat: Count push events as active forward pressure and retreats as backward movement, since they distinguish active dominance from passive subordination.3
4.Balance the sides: Alternate which animal starts from which end across repeated pairings to cancel any side or start-direction bias.
5.Clean and repeat: Clean the tube between contests to remove odor cues, then run the remaining round-robin pairings on the planned schedule.
Critical methodological constraints
Tube diameter. A bore that lets animals turn or pass invalidates the contest. Fix the diameter to the species so the only resolution is one animal backing out.3
Side and start bias. A consistent start side can masquerade as dominance. Balance start ends across pairings so direction does not confound the win-loss record.
Body weight. Heavier animals can win on mass rather than social rank. Report body weight and consider it when groups differ in size.1
Rank stability. A single round can be noisy. Repeat testing across days and report rank stability before treating the order as a hierarchy.5
2.2 Measurement & Analysis
Core tube-dominance endpoints for social rank, contest dynamics, and test-retest quality control.
Win Rate
Social rank
Fraction of contests won across pairings, the primary index of an animal's position in the dominance hierarchy.2
Match Duration
Contest intensity
Time from meeting to resolution, indexing how contested a pairing was rather than only who won.3
Push Events
Active dominance
Count of forward pushing bouts, distinguishing active dominance from simply holding ground.
Retreat Events
Subordination
Count of backward movements by the eventual loser, indexing subordination distinctly from the win-loss outcome.
Rank Stability
Test-retest QC
Concordance of rank order across repeated days, the quality-control measure that distinguishes a stable hierarchy from noise.5
+ Additional metrics: body weight, transitivity of the hierarchy, latency to first push, start side, tube diameter, and per-contest video notes.
2.3 win rate (analysis)
A compact fraction of an animal's contests that ended in a win.
Formula: wins / (wins + losses) x 100. Interpret with body weight, side balancing, tube diameter, and rank stability because a high win rate from a single unbalanced round can reflect a start-side advantage rather than social rank. 1
2.4 sample-size planning
Estimate the N per group needed to detect a literature-anchored social-rank effect at the endpoint you plan to report. Override the defaults with your own pilot numbers.
Subordinate vs dominant mouse across round-robin contests; representative magnitudes from Wang et al. (2011) on social hierarchy in medial prefrontal cortex.2
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 round-robin tube contest within a four-animal cage.
Table 1 · Per-animal Tube Dominance Test scoring output
Animal
Group
Wins
Losses
Push events
Win rate
TD-001
Dominant
8
2
14
80.0%
TD-002
Dominant
7
3
11
70.0%
TD-003
Subordinate
3
7
4
30.0%
TD-004
Subordinate
2
8
3
20.0%
TD-005
Subordinate
3
7
5
30.0%
TD-006
Dominant
7
3
12
70.0%
Synthetic example for illustration only. Pair win rate with body weight, side balancing, and rank stability across days before treating the order as a hierarchy.
§ 4
Discussion
Limitations of the paradigm, methodological caveats, and current directions.
4.1 Common confounds
Variables that can shift Tube Dominance Test results apart from the effect under study.
Body weight
Heavier animals can win contests on mass rather than social rank. Report body weight and consider it as a covariate when groups differ in size.
Prior social experience
Past winning or losing biases future contests through winner and loser effects. Document group history so experience does not masquerade as innate rank.
Tube diameter
A bore that lets animals turn or pass changes the contest entirely.
Side/start bias
A consistent start side can look like dominance. Balance start ends across pairings to cancel direction effects.
Repeated-pairing fatigue
Many contests in close succession fatigue animals and shift later outcomes. Space pairings and randomize order across the round-robin.
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 tube test is strongest when tube diameter, start sides, pairing schedule, and rank-stability checks are fixed before testing. A single round is a noisy index; balance start sides, run a round-robin, and confirm the order is stable across days, ideally cross-validating rank with an independent social assay. 1
4.3 Special considerations
How many rounds do I need for a stable rank?
A single round is noisy. Run a round-robin so every animal meets every cage-mate, then repeat across days and report rank stability before treating the order as a hierarchy.
Does body weight bias the result?
It can. Heavier animals may win on mass rather than rank, so report body weight and consider it as a covariate when groups differ in size.
How do I rule out a side bias?
Balance which animal starts from which end across pairings. A consistent start side can mimic dominance, so alternating ends cancels the direction advantage.
4.4 Current directions
Quarterly editorial review of emerging Tube Dominance Test methodology. Q2 2026
Methods
Round-robin standardization
Full round-robin pairing with balanced start sides yields a near-transitive hierarchy that is more defensible than isolated pairwise contests.
Emerging
Automated contest scoring
Side-view video and automated detection of pushes and retreats reduce observer burden and capture contest dynamics beyond the win-loss outcome.
Methods
Rank-stability reporting
Reporting test-retest concordance across days is increasingly expected because a single round can misorder a cage by chance.
Emerging
Cross-assay hierarchy validation
Tube-test rank is paired with warm-spot, ultrasonic, and barbering measures to confirm a hierarchy converges across independent social readouts.
§ 5
Background references
5 selected methods and validation studies of the Tube Dominance Test, from any lab.
Lindzey G, Winston H, Manosevitz M. Social dominance in inbred mouse strains. Nature. 1961;191:474-476.doi:10.1038/191474a0
Wang F, Zhu J, Zhu H, Zhang Q, Lin Z, Hu H. Bidirectional control of social hierarchy by synaptic efficacy in medial prefrontal cortex. Science. 2011;334(6056):693-697.doi:10.1126/science.1209951
Fan Z, Zhu H, Zhou T, Wang S, Wu Y, Hu H. Using the tube test to measure social hierarchy in mice. Nat Protoc. 2019;14(3):819-831.doi:10.1038/s41596-018-0116-4
Wang F, Kessels HW, Hu H. The mouse that roared: neural mechanisms of social hierarchy. Trends Neurosci. 2014;37(11):674-682.doi:10.1016/j.tins.2014.07.005
Zhou T, Sandi C, Hu H. Advances in understanding neural mechanisms of social dominance. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2018;49:99-107.doi:10.1016/j.conb.2018.01.006
