x
[quotes_form]
Soil biology

Soil Biology: How It Influences Soil Formation

Soil biology is a branch of science that focuses on the organisms living in or interacting with the soil. These organisms can be microorganisms such as bacteria or fungi, or macroorganisms such as plants and animals. 

Their activities instigate physical, chemical, and biological processes that take place above and below ground. In the long run, these organisms and their interactions shape the soil characteristics, which influence its ecosystem and the location where it is found. 

As a science, soil biology involves the study of the ecological food web that takes place due to the interaction of these living organisms. 

And since the ground serves as the interaction site for various organisms on earth, it also investigates the impact of their activities and their interactions on its properties and formation.

What is Soil?

Soil originated from the disintegration of rocks in the pedosphere, the uppermost layer of Earth’s surface not occupied by water. 

Natural rocks and those in man-made structures disintegrate when they are exposed to weathering agents such as water, wind, frost, temperature shifts, and other atmospheric gasses.

Soil Components

Despite having similar components, the ratio of each component in soils differs from one area to another. These differences arise from:

  • soil-forming factors, which are the parent materials in soil formation
  • climate and topology of the site of soil formation
  • the organisms living above and below ground
  • human influences, and 
  • the extent of the time these factors have been interacting.[1,2]   

Hence, soil characteristics not only differ based on location but also when and how it is formed. And these components are broadly organized into four groups:[1]   

1. Minerals

Minerals are crystalline solids that aggregate to form a rock. Disintegrated rocks result in mineral particles of different sizes and species, which aggregate to form soil. 

Minerals constitute about 45% of the overall components. They are often found as mineral salts, and most are acidic if dissolved. Common minerals found in soil include silicon dioxide, aluminum silicates, oxides of iron, and calcium carbonate.

2. Soil Organic Matter

Soil organic matter, or SOM, is decomposing dead plants and animals that can be transformed into humus, a dark, nutrient-rich, complex organic matter.[2]    

Bacteria, fungi, and small animals such as mites, millipedes, earthworms, slugs, and shelled snails feed on dead plants and larger animals, breaking down complex molecules such as lignin, cellulose, lipids and proteins in the process. 

Subsequently, these complex molecules are decomposed into simpler molecules, providing plants and other photosynthetic microbes with carbon and nutrients they can use to produce food for other animals.

3. Water

Water fills the pore spaces between mineral and SOM particles or it’s absorbed onto the surface of these particles. 

4. Air

Air fills the open pore spaces that are not occupied by water. It is used by organisms that live underground for their respiration

Soil Profile

A soil’s uniqueness is reflected in its properties, which are recorded chronologically in layers, called horizons. These horizons are vertically combined to form a soil profile.  

Properties of Horizons

Each horizon differs in its thickness and can be characterized based on various physical and chemical properties of the ground. 

Notable properties include:[2]  

  • Color, which results from the proportion of each component. For example, the types of minerals found in the dirt, the proportion of SOM, and water.  
  • Soil structure or ped describes the aggregation of soil particles. It is classified based on the natural shape of the aggregated particles such as granular, blocky, prismatic, columnar, or platy (derived from plate-like). Peds which have no internal structure or distinct shape are referred to as single grained or massive.[1]   
  • Soil texture refers to the relative proportion of the sizes of soil particles. It can be classified into sand, silt, and clay, ranging from the largest (0.05 to 2.0 mm) to the smallest (less than 2.0 microns).[2]  
  • Soil moisture or water content is the ratio of water mass to dry matter mass. 

These properties are determined by the ratio and composition of the forming components, hence each characteristic is interwoven and influences one another. For example, soil color is dependent on mineral species, composition, amount of organic matter, and moisture. 

Also, while minerals, ratio of minerals and organic matter, size of particles and pore space largely determine the soil structure and texture; these two latter properties affect the nutrient and water-holding ability, and the soil temperature, which ultimately affects its water content and biodiversity.[1,2]  

Types of Horizons

Horizons develop as layers from various soil-forming components. The newly added soil-forming materials are typically deposited on top of the older layer where they undergo various horizon development processes. In some cases, plants, soil-dwelling animals and weathering agents can move these materials to lower and older horizons. Similarly, weathering agents may remove soil-forming components from the developing soil profile.[1] Each horizon is typically designated by a specific letter to indicate its relative position in the soil profile and the observable characteristics. The following letters are typically used to designate horizons in the soil profile:[1]
  • O for organic horizon which is the soil-forming surface that consists mainly of decomposing organic matter.
    When dealing with the biological aspect, fresh litter such as dead plants and animals on top of the O horizon is sometimes separately designated as the L-layer. This is because the L-layer is newer and considerably more biologically active than O horizon.[2]
  • A horizon is the uppermost layer below the O horizon. This layer is characterized by a mixture of decomposed organic matter and mineral particles. These mineral particles are formed from weathering, gravitational movement, or accumulation of dirt particles – they can also be deposited from elsewhere.
  • E horizon refers to a bleached-color layer from loss of organic matter and minerals such as oxides of iron and aluminum.
  • B horizon is a dense layer where small soil-forming materials from the layers above are accumulated.  
  • C horizon represents the layer where the soil-forming materials are present – rocks are also present here.
Not every horizon is present in all soil profiles, thus each profile is unique. For example, a newly formed ground may contain only O-A-C horizons, whereas older ones may have four to five horizons.

Classification of Soil Biology (or Biota)

Most large animals that come in contact with the soil are typically restricted to its surface. Plants, small animals, and microorganisms, however, interact with the soil surface and exert their influence beyond the uppermost horizons. 

These organisms, which make up the soil biota or community, closely interact with the soil and play significant roles in developing soil profiles.[1]   

For instance, plants penetrate their roots into the ground as they grow. Microorganisms and animals such as ants, earthworms, millipedes, slugs, and shelled snails inhabit and feed on plant products and litter on the L-layer. 

Eventually, this L-layer becomes the O-horizon as the layer is being decomposed, while newer litter and organic matter are being formed on top of its surface. 

The several living organisms found underground can be classified based on their sizes:[2]

1. Macro- and megafauna

Macro- and megafauna are organisms whose body widths are larger than 2 mm and they consume dead plants and organic litter. Examples include moles, earthworms, ants, millipedes, beetles, termites, and scorpions.

2. Mesofauna

Mesofauna is a group of organisms whose body widths are between 0.1 mm to 2 mm. Microarthropods represent the most abundant and best-described mesofauna and act often as consumers. Examples are mites, springtails (Collembola), and pot worms. 

3. Microfauna

Microfauna refers to organisms whose body widths are less than 0.1 mm. Microfauna include:[2] 

  • Nematodes known as roundworms, which are free-living multicellular animals that typically live among ground particles. They act as primary consumers feeding on plant roots and litter from plants, or higher-level consumers feeding on bacteria, fungi, and other animals underground.     
  • Protozoa, a group of unicellular eukaryotes such as amoebae, ciliates, and flagellates. Some are capable of free-living while others are parasitic. Protozoa live in water-filled pore spaces and require water for movement. However, many protozoa form resistant structures called cysts to overcome drought conditions. They feed on bacteria, fungi, other protozoa, and small animals.

4. Microorganims

Microorganisms in soil communities are microbes such as bacteria, yeast, fungi, and algae. They represent the most abundant and diverse group of organisms, a few notable microbes are:[1]

  • Nitrogen fixers such as Azotobacter and Rhizobium. Azotobacter is a free-living bacteria, while Rhizobium colonizes the roots of legume plants to form a structure called root noodle. Both can fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and convert it to ammonium, increasing the nitrogen supply in the ground and providing the plants with their essential amino acids.
  • Nitrifiers are bacteria of the Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter genera. They are capable of oxidizing ammonium to nitrate, i.e. nitrification, which facilitates the cycling of nitrogen from the ground back to the atmosphere. 
  • Mycorrhizae are fungi that colonize the cortical tissue of plant roots. In doing so, they acquire carbon sources from the plants, while delivering the colonizing plants with nutrients, especially phosphorus. The interaction between plants and mycorrhiza increases the plants’ fitness, allowing them to survive and thrive in harsh environments.

    Common mycorrhizal fungi are:[2]

    • Ectomycorrhizas or EM fungi, are frequently found in conifer roots grown in temperate forests.
    • Ericoid mycorrhizae are found in evergreen shrubs grown in the alpine and arctic tundra.
    • Arbuscular mycorrhizae are commonly found in the roots of various crops and legumes.  

The Importance of the Soil Biota

1. It contributes to the soil- and horizon-formation processes

These organisms influence soil-forming processes, development of horizons and soil profiles.  Their activities are regarded as biological weathering agents, which wear away rocks and decompose organic matter, leading to horizon development and formation.   For instance, 
  • Transformation describes a process of horizon development where the newly added soil-forming components are altered. Soil-forming components can be transformed by physical, chemical, and biological processes. 
    For example, when plants’ aboveground parts are shed on top of the surface of the ground, organisms consume these plant parts, breaking them into small pieces and decomposing them into organic matter. In the end, the organic matter accumulates and mixes with other soil-forming components to become another horizon in the soil profile.
  • Leaching is a pedogenic process in which soil-forming materials are translocated to lower horizons. The translocation of these components occurs with plant growth, microbial and animal activities.
    As plants grow, their roots penetrate the ground, causing soil-forming materials such as minerals and decomposed organic matter to move down the developing soil profile.
    Simultaneously, the movement of small animals and microorganisms as they feed on dead plants and litter also shifts dirt particles around and across the soil profile.   
In addition, animal and human interference can transport pedogenic components from one place to another or remove them from the developing soil profile, adding to the development of horizons and soil formation.

2. Soil biology provides nutrients and drives the nutrient cycle 

The biological activity of living organisms, especially microorganisms, provides the soil with nutrients and cycles them through the ecological food web of the site.

Food produced from plants grown aboveground is consumed by consumers that live in or below the ground. Wastes from food consumption, including plant, animal remains, and organic fertilizers, are decomposed, transforming them into nutrient forms that plants and other autotrophs can use to produce food

The nutrients are cycled through the food web when consumers feed on the food and defecate or die, and decomposers digest the feces or consumers’ remains into the form of nutrients that plants and autotrophs can use. 

Certain bacteria and fungi can enrich the soil with nutrients. Nitrogen fixers acquire nitrogen from the atmosphere, supplying it with ammonium while nitrifiers convert ammonium into nitrates. 

Mycorrhiza can provide phosphorus in exchange for carbon sources derived from the plants they colonize. These minerals can be assimilated by plants and other autotrophs to produce food for consumers.

3. Soil biota shapes soil properties and fertility

The ratio of soil-forming components determine its properties, including soil structure, texture, and moisture. To a certain degree, these properties are dictated by the biodiversity of the soil biota and their interactions with the soil.     

The rate of organic matter decomposition and nutrient release relies on the species present on the location. In other words, the number of organisms and the species that decompose and transform organic matter into consumable nutrients affect the ratio of organic matter, water content, and air space between the components.

The composition of the soil dictates its structure and texture, which, in turn, prescribes the compatibility of the site for organisms to inhabit. Ultimately, the inhabiting organisms condition the soil fertility by acquiring or making nutrients available for autotrophs’ use, determining the suitability of its applications.[1]

Conclusion

Soil serves as a platform for the growth and development of microbes, plants, and animals that live above, in or below ground. Their interaction with the soil and with one another is depicted in a soil profile, consisting of several layers called horizons. 

Overall, soil biology looks into the dynamics of the soil, in view of its occupying creatures and their impact on its properties and formation. Such understanding is useful in assessing its potential for use in agriculture and other human activities.

References

  1. Jhonson C, Biology of Soil Science. Jaipur: Oxford Book Company; 2009. 
  2. Bardgett R, The Biology of Soil: A Community and Ecosystem Approach. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005

Learn More about our Services and how can we help you with your research!

Introduction

In behavioral neuroscience, the Open Field Test (OFT) remains one of the most widely used assays to evaluate rodent models of affect, cognition, and motivation. It provides a non-invasive framework for examining how animals respond to novelty, stress, and pharmacological or environmental manipulations. Among the test’s core metrics, the percentage of time spent in the center zone offers a uniquely normalized and sensitive measure of an animal’s emotional reactivity and willingness to engage with a potentially risky environment.

This metric is calculated as the proportion of time spent in the central area of the arena—typically the inner 25%—relative to the entire session duration. By normalizing this value, researchers gain a behaviorally informative variable that is resilient to fluctuations in session length or overall movement levels. This makes it especially valuable in comparative analyses, longitudinal monitoring, and cross-model validation.

Unlike raw center duration, which can be affected by trial design inconsistencies, the percentage-based measure enables clearer comparisons across animals, treatments, and conditions. It plays a key role in identifying trait anxiety, avoidance behavior, risk-taking tendencies, and environmental adaptation, making it indispensable in both basic and translational research contexts.

Whereas simple center duration provides absolute time, the percentage-based metric introduces greater interpretability and reproducibility, especially when comparing different animal models, treatment conditions, or experimental setups. It is particularly effective for quantifying avoidance behaviors, risk assessment strategies, and trait anxiety profiles in both acute and longitudinal designs.

What Does Percentage of Time in the Centre Measure?

This metric reflects the relative amount of time an animal chooses to spend in the open, exposed portion of the arena—typically defined as the inner 25% of a square or circular enclosure. Because rodents innately prefer the periphery (thigmotaxis), time in the center is inversely associated with anxiety-like behavior. As such, this percentage is considered a sensitive, normalized index of:

  • Exploratory drive vs. risk aversion: High center time reflects an animal’s willingness to engage with uncertain or exposed environments, often indicative of lower anxiety and a stronger intrinsic drive to explore. These animals are more likely to exhibit flexible, information-gathering behaviors. On the other hand, animals that spend little time in the center display a strong bias toward the safety of the perimeter, indicative of a defensive behavioral state or trait-level risk aversion. This dichotomy helps distinguish adaptive exploration from fear-driven avoidance.

  • Emotional reactivity: Fluctuations in center time percentage serve as a sensitive behavioral proxy for changes in emotional state. In stress-prone or trauma-exposed animals, decreased center engagement may reflect hypervigilance or fear generalization, while a sudden increase might indicate emotional blunting or impaired threat appraisal. The metric is also responsive to acute stressors, environmental perturbations, or pharmacological interventions that impact affective regulation.

  • Behavioral confidence and adaptation: Repeated exposure to the same environment typically leads to reduced novelty-induced anxiety and increased behavioral flexibility. A rising trend in center time percentage across trials suggests successful habituation, reduced threat perception, and greater confidence in navigating open spaces. Conversely, a stable or declining trend may indicate behavioral rigidity or chronic stress effects.

  • Pharmacological or genetic modulation: The percentage of time in the center is widely used to evaluate the effects of pharmacological treatments and genetic modifications that influence anxiety-related circuits. Anxiolytic agents—including benzodiazepines, SSRIs, and cannabinoid agonists—reliably increase center occupancy, providing a robust behavioral endpoint in preclinical drug trials. Similarly, genetic models targeting serotonin receptors, GABAergic tone, or HPA axis function often show distinct patterns of center preference, offering translational insights into psychiatric vulnerability and resilience.

Critically, because this metric is normalized by session duration, it accommodates variability in activity levels or testing conditions. This makes it especially suitable for comparing across individuals, treatment groups, or timepoints in longitudinal studies.

A high percentage of center time indicates reduced anxiety, increased novelty-seeking, or pharmacological modulation (e.g., anxiolysis). Conversely, a low percentage suggests emotional inhibition, behavioral avoidance, or contextual hypervigilance. reduced anxiety, increased novelty-seeking, or pharmacological modulation (e.g., anxiolysis). Conversely, a low percentage suggests emotional inhibition, behavioral avoidance, or contextual hypervigilance.

Behavioral Significance and Neuroscientific Context

1. Emotional State and Trait Anxiety

The percentage of center time is one of the most direct, unconditioned readouts of anxiety-like behavior in rodents. It is frequently reduced in models of PTSD, chronic stress, or early-life adversity, where animals exhibit persistent avoidance of the center due to heightened emotional reactivity. This metric can also distinguish between acute anxiety responses and enduring trait anxiety, especially in longitudinal or developmental studies. Its normalized nature makes it ideal for comparing across cohorts with variable locomotor profiles, helping researchers detect true affective changes rather than activity-based confounds.

2. Exploration Strategies and Cognitive Engagement

Rodents that spend more time in the center zone typically exhibit broader and more flexible exploration strategies. This behavior reflects not only reduced anxiety but also cognitive engagement and environmental curiosity. High center percentage is associated with robust spatial learning, attentional scanning, and memory encoding functions, supported by coordinated activation in the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, and basal forebrain. In contrast, reduced center engagement may signal spatial rigidity, attentional narrowing, or cognitive withdrawal, particularly in models of neurodegeneration or aging.

3. Pharmacological Responsiveness

The open field test remains one of the most widely accepted platforms for testing anxiolytic and psychotropic drugs. The percentage of center time reliably increases following administration of anxiolytic agents such as benzodiazepines, SSRIs, and GABA-A receptor agonists. This metric serves as a sensitive and reproducible endpoint in preclinical dose-finding studies, mechanistic pharmacology, and compound screening pipelines. It also aids in differentiating true anxiolytic effects from sedation or motor suppression by integrating with other behavioral parameters like distance traveled and entry count (Prut & Belzung, 2003).

4. Sex Differences and Hormonal Modulation

Sex-based differences in emotional regulation often manifest in open field behavior, with female rodents generally exhibiting higher variability in center zone metrics due to hormonal cycling. For example, estrogen has been shown to facilitate exploratory behavior and increase center occupancy, while progesterone and stress-induced corticosterone often reduce it. Studies involving gonadectomy, hormone replacement, or sex-specific genetic knockouts use this metric to quantify the impact of endocrine factors on anxiety and exploratory behavior. As such, it remains a vital tool for dissecting sex-dependent neurobehavioral dynamics.
The percentage of center time is one of the most direct, unconditioned readouts of anxiety-like behavior in rodents. It is frequently reduced in models of PTSD, chronic stress, or early-life adversity. Because it is normalized, this metric is especially helpful for distinguishing between genuine avoidance and low general activity.

Methodological Considerations

  • Zone Definition: Accurately defining the center zone is critical for reliable and reproducible data. In most open field arenas, the center zone constitutes approximately 25% of the total area, centrally located and evenly distanced from the walls. Software-based segmentation tools enhance precision and ensure consistency across trials and experiments. Deviations in zone parameters—whether due to arena geometry or tracking inconsistencies—can result in skewed data, especially when calculating percentages.

     

  • Trial Duration: Trials typically last between 5 to 10 minutes. The percentage of time in the center must be normalized to total trial duration to maintain comparability across animals and experimental groups. Longer trials may lead to fatigue, boredom, or habituation effects that artificially reduce exploratory behavior, while overly short trials may not capture full behavioral repertoires or response to novel stimuli.

     

  • Handling and Habituation: Variability in pre-test handling can introduce confounds, particularly through stress-induced hypoactivity or hyperactivity. Standardized handling routines—including gentle, consistent human interaction in the days leading up to testing—reduce variability. Habituation to the testing room and apparatus prior to data collection helps animals engage in more representative exploratory behavior, minimizing novelty-induced freezing or erratic movement.

     

  • Tracking Accuracy: High-resolution tracking systems should be validated for accurate, real-time detection of full-body center entries and sustained occupancy. The system should distinguish between full zone occupancy and transient overlaps or partial body entries that do not reflect true exploratory behavior. Poor tracking fidelity or lag can produce significant measurement error in percentage calculations.

     

  • Environmental Control: Uniformity in environmental conditions is essential. Lighting should be evenly diffused to avoid shadow bias, and noise should be minimized to prevent stress-induced variability. The arena must be cleaned between trials using odor-neutral solutions to eliminate scent trails or pheromone cues that may affect zone preference. Any variation in these conditions can introduce systematic bias in center zone behavior. Use consistent definitions of the center zone (commonly 25% of total area) to allow valid comparisons. Software-based segmentation enhances spatial precision.

Interpretation with Complementary Metrics

Temporal Dynamics of Center Occupancy

Evaluating how center time evolves across the duration of a session—divided into early, middle, and late thirds—provides insight into behavioral transitions and adaptive responses. Animals may begin by avoiding the center, only to gradually increase center time as they habituate to the environment. Conversely, persistently low center time across the session can signal prolonged anxiety, fear generalization, or a trait-like avoidance phenotype.

Cross-Paradigm Correlation

To validate the significance of center time percentage, it should be examined alongside results from other anxiety-related tests such as the Elevated Plus Maze, Light-Dark Box, or Novelty Suppressed Feeding. Concordance across paradigms supports the reliability of center time as a trait marker, while discordance may indicate task-specific reactivity or behavioral dissociation.

Behavioral Microstructure Analysis

When paired with high-resolution scoring of behavioral events such as rearing, grooming, defecation, or immobility, center time offers a richer view of the animal’s internal state. For example, an animal that spends substantial time in the center while grooming may be coping with mild stress, while another that remains immobile in the periphery may be experiencing more severe anxiety. Microstructure analysis aids in decoding the complexity behind spatial behavior.

Inter-individual Variability and Subgroup Classification

Animals naturally vary in their exploratory style. By analyzing percentage of center time across subjects, researchers can identify behavioral subgroups—such as consistently bold individuals who frequently explore the center versus cautious animals that remain along the periphery. These classifications can be used to examine predictors of drug response, resilience to stress, or vulnerability to neuropsychiatric disorders.

Machine Learning-Based Behavioral Clustering

In studies with large cohorts or multiple behavioral variables, machine learning techniques such as hierarchical clustering or principal component analysis can incorporate center time percentage to discover novel phenotypic groupings. These data-driven approaches help uncover latent dimensions of behavior that may not be visible through univariate analyses alone.

Total Distance Traveled

Total locomotion helps contextualize center time. Low percentage values in animals with minimal movement may reflect sedation or fatigue, while similar values in high-mobility subjects suggest deliberate avoidance. This metric helps distinguish emotional versus motor causes of low center engagement.

Number of Center Entries

This measure indicates how often the animal initiates exploration of the center zone. When combined with percentage of time, it differentiates between frequent but brief visits (indicative of anxiety or impulsivity) versus fewer but sustained center engagements (suggesting comfort and behavioral confidence).

Latency to First Center Entry

The delay before the first center entry reflects initial threat appraisal. Longer latencies may be associated with heightened fear or low motivation, while shorter latencies are typically linked to exploratory drive or low anxiety.

Thigmotaxis Time

Time spent hugging the walls offers a spatial counterbalance to center metrics. High thigmotaxis and low center time jointly support an interpretation of strong avoidance behavior. This inverse relationship helps triangulate affective and motivational states.

Applications in Translational Research

  • Drug Discovery: The percentage of center time is a key behavioral endpoint in the development and screening of anxiolytic, antidepressant, and antipsychotic medications. Its sensitivity to pharmacological modulation makes it particularly valuable in dose-response assessments and in distinguishing therapeutic effects from sedative or locomotor confounds. Repeated trials can also help assess drug tolerance and chronic efficacy over time.
  • Genetic and Neurodevelopmental Modeling: In transgenic and knockout models, altered center percentage provides a behavioral signature of neurodevelopmental abnormalities. This is particularly relevant in the study of autism spectrum disorders, ADHD, fragile X syndrome, and schizophrenia, where subjects often exhibit heightened anxiety, reduced flexibility, or altered environmental engagement.
  • Hormonal and Sex-Based Research: The metric is highly responsive to hormonal fluctuations, including estrous cycle phases, gonadectomy, and hormone replacement therapies. It supports investigations into sex differences in stress reactivity and the behavioral consequences of endocrine disorders or interventions.
  • Environmental Enrichment and Deprivation: Housing conditions significantly influence anxiety-like behavior and exploratory motivation. Animals raised in enriched environments typically show increased center time, indicative of reduced stress and greater behavioral plasticity. Conversely, socially isolated or stimulus-deprived animals often show strong center avoidance.
  • Behavioral Biomarker Development: As a robust and reproducible readout, center time percentage can serve as a behavioral biomarker in longitudinal and interventional studies. It is increasingly used to identify early signs of affective dysregulation or to track the efficacy of neuromodulatory treatments such as optogenetics, chemogenetics, or deep brain stimulation.
  • Personalized Preclinical Models: This measure supports behavioral stratification, allowing researchers to identify high-anxiety or low-anxiety phenotypes before treatment. This enables within-group comparisons and enhances statistical power by accounting for pre-existing behavioral variation. Used to screen anxiolytic agents and distinguish between compounds with sedative vs. anxiolytic profiles.

Enhancing Research Outcomes with Percentage-Based Analysis

By expressing center zone activity as a proportion of total trial time, researchers gain a metric that is resistant to session variability and more readily comparable across time, treatment, and model conditions. This normalized measure enhances reproducibility and statistical power, particularly in multi-cohort or cross-laboratory designs.

For experimental designs aimed at assessing anxiety, exploratory strategy, or affective state, the percentage of time spent in the center offers one of the most robust and interpretable measures available in the Open Field Test.

Explore high-resolution tracking solutions and open field platforms at

References

  • Prut, L., & Belzung, C. (2003). The open field as a paradigm to measure the effects of drugs on anxiety-like behaviors: a review. European Journal of Pharmacology, 463(1–3), 3–33.
  • Seibenhener, M. L., & Wooten, M. C. (2015). Use of the open field maze to measure locomotor and anxiety-like behavior in mice. Journal of Visualized Experiments, (96), e52434.
  • Crawley, J. N. (2007). What’s Wrong With My Mouse? Behavioral Phenotyping of Transgenic and Knockout Mice. Wiley-Liss.
  • Carola, V., D’Olimpio, F., Brunamonti, E., Mangia, F., & Renzi, P. (2002). Evaluation of the elevated plus-maze and open-field tests for the assessment of anxiety-related behavior in inbred mice. Behavioral Brain Research, 134(1–2), 49–57.

Written by researchers, for researchers — powered by Conduct Science.