Cited by 256Memory and Neural MechanismsCognitive Abilities and TestingVisual perception and processing mechanisms

The touchscreen cognitive testing method for rodents: How to get the best out of your rat

Open access
Bussey, Timothy J., Padain, Tina L., Skillings, Elizabeth A., Winters, Boyer D., Morton, A. Jennifer, Saksida, Lisa M.·2008·Learning & Memory

Abstract

The touchscreen testing method for rodents is a computer-automated behavioral testing method that allows computer graphic stimuli to be presented to rodents and the rodents to respond to the computer screen via a nose-poke directly to the stimulus. The advantages of this method are numerous; however, a systematic study of the parameters that affect learning has not yet been conducted. We therefore sought to optimize stimuli and task parameters in this method. We found that when parameters were optimized, Lister Hooded rats could learn rapidly using this method, solving a discrimination of two-dimensional stimuli to a level of 80% within five to six sessions lasting ∼30 min each. In a final experiment we tested both male and female rats of the albino Sprague-Dawley strain, which are often assumed to have visual abilities far too poor to be useful for studies of visual cognition. The performance of female Sprague-Dawley rats was indistinguishable from that of their male counterparts. Furthermore, performance of male Sprague-Dawley rats was indistinguishable from that of their Lister Hooded counterparts. Finally, Experiment 5 examined the ability of Lister Hooded rats to learn a discrimination between photographic stimuli. Under conditions in which parameters were optimized, rats were remarkably adept at this discrimination. Taken together, these experiments served to optimize the touchscreen method and have demonstrated its usefulness as a high-throughput method for the cognitive testing of rodents.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/lm.987808

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Available mouse operant touchscreen paradigms seem to have face validity relative to human cognitive touchscreen tasks, although there is concern that the cognitive profile of Fmr1-KO mice may not emulate the cognitive deficits in the human syndrome.

    “available mouse operant touchscreen paradigms seem to have face validity63,89,101–104 relative to human cognitive touchscreen tasks97, although there is concern that the cognitive profile of Fmr1-KO mice may not emulate the cognitive deficits in the human syndrome63.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bussey, T. J., Padain, T. L., Skillings, E. A., Winters, B. D., Morton, A. J., & Saksida, L. M.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Venue
Learning & Memory
Published
2008-07
Volume
15
Issue
7
Pages
516-523
ISSN
  • 1072-0502 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5485
OpenAlex
W2052032617
Cited by
255
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 13
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Learning & Memory (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
visual discrimination learning, Lister hooded rats, Sprague-Dawley rats, sex differences in learning, visual cognition
MeSH terms
Animals, Cognition, Discrimination Learning, Female, Learning, Male, Psychological Tests, Touch, Visual Perception, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Models, Animal, Rats

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review