Zero Maze

SKU CS-958390-02-CLEAR
$2,290.00
Unit: Each
IncludesStandard Care

Elevated circular behavioral apparatus for anxiety assessment and exploratory behavior testing in mice and rats, featuring non-reflective acrylic construction and easy cleaning protocols.

CE MarkedBAA available
Color SKU CS-958390-02-CLEAR
Species SKU CS-958390-02-CLEAR
$2,290.00
Unit: Each
Scientist guidance
Louise Corscadden, PhD, Director of Science

Louise Corscadden, PhD

Director of Science · ConductScience

Ask Louise about Zero Maze fit, setup, configuration, or quote prep.

Used in a 2026 paper in the journal Neuron

“Autonomic C1 neurons promote anxiety via activation of vlPAG”

From the key resources table
Elevated Zero Maze · Maze Engineers

Maze Engineers, the maker named in the paper, is part of ConductScience.

See all 14 papers citing this product

Last counted

Key Specifications

Full details →
Behavioral test
Elevated zero maze
Species
Mouse, Rat
Outcome measures
Distance traveled
Sizing
Mouse: Diameter 50 cm · Track width 5 cm; Rat: Diameter 100 cm · Track width 10 cm
Selected catalog number
CS-958390-02-CLEAR

Score this test with ConductVision

ConductVision is our video-tracking software. Record your sessions on video, and it reports the measures listed below.

What it measures

Add ConductVision to your quote

ConductVision

$1,490 per year

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

The same license also scores standard tests such as the open field, the elevated plus maze, the Y-maze and the Morris water maze. Results export as CSV files.

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

Total: $0.00

Frequently Bought Together

Total: $2,730.00

§ 1

Introduction

The Zero Maze is a anxiety assay built around continuous open-versus-closed exploration without the center-zone ambiguity of plus-maze designs. Interpretable data depend on matching the apparatus geometry, subject species, trial structure, and scoring rules to the behavioral construct under study. 1

Anxiety-like exploration protocols depend on stable geometry, consistent trial timing, and pre-defined scoring rules. Without those controls, open-zone time can be shifted by motivation, locomotion, light level, odor, cue salience, or handling rather than the intended behavioral construct. 1

This methods section summarizes setup, endpoint definitions, common confounds, sample output, adjacent assays, and reporting details needed to evaluate Zero Maze results alongside the product specifications. 1

§ 2

Methods

2.1 Procedure

Anxiety-like exploration with standardized setup, trial timing, and endpoint extraction.

Pre-test setup

  1. 1.Define construct: Pre-register whether the study uses Zero Maze for anxiety behavior, screening, cohort comparison, or apparatus validation.
  2. 2.Calibrate apparatus: Verify elevated circular annulus with alternating open and enclosed quadrants, visibility, lighting, surface condition, cue placement, and camera field of view before animals enter the room.
  3. 3.Set scoring rules: Define open-zone time, omissions, exclusions, latency cutoffs, and event thresholds before acquisition starts.
  4. 4.Control carryover: Use consistent cleaning, handling, acclimation, and inter-trial timing so odor, stress, and fatigue do not become hidden treatment variables.

Trial sequence

  1. 1.Start trial: Place the subject at the protocol-defined start location and begin synchronized video or event logging.
  2. 2.Record behavior: Capture open-zone time, path order, latency, dwell time, and relevant zone or arm events throughout the trial.1
  3. 3.Apply endpoint rules: Score only committed entries or events that meet the pre-defined body-position and timing criteria.
  4. 4.End and reset: Stop at the maximum duration, completion criterion, or humane endpoint, then clean and reset the apparatus.
  5. 5.Export QC: Review tracking loss, outlier latency, immobility, omissions, and apparatus notes before group-level analysis.

Critical methodological constraints

  • Lighting. Document lighting because it can shift open-zone time independent of the intended construct.
  • Height exposure. Keep height exposure stable across cohorts and sessions.
  • Locomotor activity. Audit locomotor activity before interpreting group differences.
  • Edge risk. Report edge risk when it changes engagement, exploration, or measurable trial completion.
  • Center-free geometry. Flag center-free geometry during QA because it often explains apparent assay failure.2

2.2 Measurement & Analysis

Core Zero Maze endpoints for behavioral interpretation and apparatus quality control.

Open-zone time

Anxiety-like exploration

Open-zone time is the primary endpoint for this page and should be paired with latency and quality-control flags.1

Entry latency

Latency and initiation

Entry latency helps distinguish task performance from motivation, freezing, fatigue, or handling effects.

Transition count

Spatial or zone strategy

Transition count captures how the subject solved the task, not only whether it reached the endpoint.

Freezing time

Engagement control

Freezing time identifies omissions, low exploration, sensor dropouts, or species-specific non-response.

Falls or tracking loss

Quality-control flag

Falls or tracking loss should be reviewed before exporting final group summaries.

+ Additional metrics: trial duration, zone dwell, event count, path efficiency, tracking confidence, exclusions, and session-level notes.

2.3 open-zone time ratio (analysis)

A compact percentage summary for Zero Maze output.

Inline calculator

Type the values your tracker recorded.

Full calculator with 95% CI ->
Open-zone time ratio

23.3%

Formula: open-zone time / (open-zone time + closed-zone time) x 100. Interpret with latency, engagement, and confound checks before making construct-level claims. 1

§ 3

Results

3.1 Sample apparatus output

Representative Zero Maze output for methods review and endpoint interpretation.

Table 1 · Per-animal Zero Maze scoring output

AnimalGroupOpen-zone timeEntry latencyTransition countSummary
ZM-001Control92 s8 s1830.7%
ZM-002Control86 s7 s1628.7%
ZM-003Treatment132 s5 s2444.0%
ZM-004Treatment145 s4 s2748.3%

Synthetic example for illustration only. Replace with tracked output screenshots or exported data when product media are available.

§ 4

Discussion

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

4.1 Common confounds

Variables that can shift Zero Maze results apart from the effect under study.

Lighting

Lighting can change apparent Zero Maze performance without reflecting the intended behavioral construct.

Height exposure

Height exposure can change apparent Zero Maze performance without reflecting the intended behavioral construct.

Locomotor activity

Locomotor activity can change apparent Zero Maze performance without reflecting the intended behavioral construct.

Edge risk

Edge risk can change apparent Zero Maze performance without reflecting the intended behavioral construct.

Center-free geometry

Center-free geometry can change apparent Zero Maze performance without reflecting the intended behavioral construct.

4.2 Construct validity caveats

Zero Maze is strongest when endpoint definitions, apparatus settings, and exclusion rules are specified before testing. Treat a single summary metric as a screening signal, then confirm interpretation with latency, engagement, comparator assays, and quality-control review. 1

4.3 Special considerations

When should I choose Zero Maze?

Choose Zero Maze when the research question matches continuous open-versus-closed exploration without the center-zone ambiguity of plus-maze designs. and the lab can control lighting, height exposure, and trial timing.

What setup variables should be specified before testing?

Specify species, cohort size, apparatus dimensions, lighting, tracking method, automation level, cleaning workflow, endpoint definitions, and exclusion criteria before data collection begins.

What makes the data interpretable?

Interpretation is strongest when the apparatus configuration, trial timing, scoring thresholds, confound controls, and comparator assays are documented together with the primary endpoint.

4.4 Current directions

Quarterly editorial review of emerging Zero Maze methodology. Q2 2026

Methods

Endpoint standardization

Define open-zone time, latency, exclusions, and engagement flags before comparing cohorts.

Emerging

Automated scoring

Camera and event-log workflows can reduce observer burden and improve consistency when zone definitions and event thresholds are validated.

Methods

Comparator batteries

Zero Maze should link to adjacent maze, motor, or motivation assays when interpretation depends on controls.

Emerging

Integrated method reporting

Apparatus dimensions, protocol fit, tracking compatibility, and endpoint definitions should be reported together so results are easier to reproduce.

§ 5

Background references

10 selected methods and validation studies of the Zero Maze, from any lab.

  1. Dudchenko PA. An overview of the tasks used to test working memory in rodents. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2004;28(7):699-709. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.09.002
  2. Shoji H, et al. Comprehensive behavioral test battery for mice. Curr Protoc Mouse Biol. 2012;2:153-187. Find source
  3. Vorhees CV, Williams MT. Assessing spatial learning and memory in rodents. ILAR J. 2014;55(2):310-332. Find source
  4. Lalonde R. The neurobiological basis of spontaneous alternation. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2002;26(1):91-104. doi:10.1016/S0149-7634(01)00041-0
  5. Walf AA, Frye CA. The use of the elevated plus maze as an assay of anxiety-related behavior in rodents. Nat Protoc. 2007;2(2):322-328. doi:10.1038/nprot.2007.44
  6. Pellow S, Chopin P, File SE, Briley M. Validation of open:closed arm entries in an elevated plus-maze as a measure of anxiety in the rat. J Neurosci Methods. 1985;14(3):149-167. doi:10.1016/0165-0270(85)90031-7
  7. Crawley JN, Goodwin FK. Preliminary report of a simple animal behavior model for the anxiolytic effects of benzodiazepines. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1980;13(2):167-170. doi:10.1016/0091-3057(80)90067-2
  8. File SE, Wardill AG. Validity of head-dipping as a measure of exploration in a modified hole-board. Psychopharmacologia. 1975;44(1):53-59. Find source
  9. Walsh RN, Cummins RA. The Open-Field Test: a critical review. Psychol Bull. 1976;83(3):482-504. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.83.3.482
  10. Brown RE, Corey SC, Moore AK. Differences in measures of exploration and fear in MHC-congenic C57BL/6J and B6-H-2K mice. Behav Genet. 1999;29(4):263-271. Find source
Zero Maze
Zero Maze
$2,290.00
Added to quoteView Quote