您的位置:山东大学 -> 科技期刊社 -> 《山东大学学报(医学版)》

山东大学学报 (医学版) ›› 2024, Vol. 62 ›› Issue (3): 1-10.doi: 10.6040/j.issn.1671-7554.0.2024.0098

• 基础医学 •    下一篇

小鼠二选一赌博实验范式设计及验证

古玥琳,肖晓   

  1. 复旦大学类脑智能科学与技术研究院认知神经科学中心, 上海 200433
  • 发布日期:2024-05-06
  • 通讯作者: 肖晓. E-mail:Xiaoxiao@fudan.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:
    国家重点研发计划(2019YFA0709504);科技创新2030“脑科学与类脑研究”重大项目(2021ZD0202805)

Design and validation of a mouse two-choice gambling experimental paradigm

GU Yuelin, XIAO Xiao   

  1. Behavior and Cognitive Neuroscience Center, Institute of Science and Technology for Brain-inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China
  • Published:2024-05-06

摘要: 目的 设计和验证一种小鼠赌博实验范式,为精神疾病模型相关的决策冲动行为提供客观的评估手段。 方法 本研究使用C57/BL6J小鼠验证实验范式。实验范式分为六个阶段任务,并设定每个阶段的完成标准与评价指标。阶段一为限食阶段,控制小鼠体质量为初始值的85%;阶段二为装置适应阶段,小鼠只在操作箱内取食;阶段三为触屏取食阶段,分为三个任务(初始触屏任务、二选一触屏任务和单一选择触屏任务),训练小鼠触摸屏幕上的白色方块取食。阶段四为基础触屏任务,小鼠同样触摸白色方块取食,但增加了任务间的间隔时间且不设置不同的奖励和风险大小;阶段五为强制选择任务,强制小鼠触摸白色方块取食,学习不同方块代表的奖励和风险大小;阶段六为自由选择任务,小鼠自由选择高风险和低风险的方块获得不同大小的奖励,评价小鼠的决策冲动行为。 结果 各小鼠的装置适应阶段适应效果良好;触屏取食任务训练次数均大于130次/d;基础触屏任务正确率高于80.00%,错过率低于20.00%;强制选择任务的训练次数高于80次/d,正确率稳定在100.00%;自由选择任务训练次数高于60次/d,高风险选择比例在20.00%~30.00%。 结论 相较于其他范式,此范式训练后小鼠的准确率更高,避免了惩罚机制,提供了一种奖励依赖的决策冲动行为研究方法,对深入理解多种神经精神疾病的神经机制及其治疗方法的开发具有理论和应用价值。

关键词: 行为范式, 决策冲动, 小鼠, 奖励, 斯金纳箱

Abstract: Objective To design and validate a mouse gambling experimental paradigm so as to provide an objective measure to evaluate impulsivity in decision-making associated with neuropsychiatric diseases. Methods The experimental paradigm was validated using C57/BL6J mice. The experimental paradigm was structured into six sessions, each with specific criteria and assessment standards. The first session involved a food restriction phase, maintaining the mices weight at 85% of the initial weight. The second session focused on apparatus adaptation, where mice obtained food solely within the operant chamber. The third session was dedicated to touchscreen training, subdivided into three tasks, i.e., initial touchscreen task, two-choice touchscreen task, and single-choice touchscreen task, which trained mice to touch white squares on the screen to obtain food. The fourth session was the basic touchscreen task, in which the mice continued to touch white squares for food access, but intervals between tasks were introduced without varying the levels of reward or risk. The fifth session, the forced-choice task, required mice to touch white squares to get food, teaching them the associations among different squares and their corresponding rewards and risks. The sixth session introduced a free-choice task, allowing mice to freely choose between high-risk or low-risk squares for variable rewards, thereby evaluating their impulsivity in decision-making. Results The number of completed trials in the touchscreen tasks exceeded 130 times per day. In the basic touchscreen task, the accuracy rate was above 80.00%, with a missing rate below 20.00%. The number of completed trials in the forced-choice task exceeded 80 times per day, with a consistent accuracy rate of 100.00%. In the free-choice task, the number of completed trials exceeded 60 times per day, with high-risk proportions ranging from 20.00% to 30.00%. Conclusion This paradigm outperforms alternative models by yielding higher accuracy in trained mice and avoids the use of punitive measures, providing a reward-dependent approach to studying impulsivity in decision-making. It holds significant theoretical and practical value in advancing our understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying neuropsychiatric diseases and in the development of new treatment strategies.

Key words: Behavioral paradigm, Decision impulsivity, Mice, Reward, Skinner box

中图分类号: 

  • Q95-33
[1] Dastamooz S, Sadeghi-Bahmani D, Farahani MHD, et al. The efficacy of physical exercise interventions on mental health, cognitive function, and ADHD symptoms in children and adolescents with ADHD: an umbrella review[J]. EClinicalMedicine, 2023, 62: 102137. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102137.
[2] Jenner L, Richards C, Howard R, et al. Heterogeneity of autism characteristics in genetic syndromes: key considerations for assessment and support[J]. Curr Dev Disord Rep, 2023, 10(2): 132-146.
[3] 李佳博, 欧阳江峰, 杨丁, 等. 长效针剂在三省部分社区精神分裂症患者中的应用现状及存在问题[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2022, 60(6):107-113. LI Jiabo, OUYANG Jiangfeng, Yang Ding, et al. Long-acting injectable application in patients with schizophrenia in communities of three provinces: current status and problems[J]. Journal of Shandong University(Health Sciences), 2022, 60(6): 107-113.
[4] Fan H, Liu Z, Wu X, et al. Decoding anxiety-impulsivity subtypes in preadolescent internalising disorders: findings from the adolescent brain cognitive development study[J]. Br J Psychiatry, 2023, 223(6): 542-554.
[5] Savard J, Hirvikoski T, Görts Öberg K, et al. Impulsivity in compulsive sexual behavior disorder and pedophilic disorder[J]. J Behav Addict, 2021, 10(3): 839-847.
[6] Chan CC, Alter S, Hazlett EA, et al. Neural correlates of impulsivity in bipolar disorder: a systematic review and clinical implications[J]. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 2023, 147: 105109. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105109.
[7] Dalley JW, Robbins TW. Fractionating impulsivity: neuropsychiatric implications[J]. Nat Rev Neurosci, 2017, 18(3): 158-171.
[8] Elliott MV, Johnson SL, Pearlstein JG, et al. Emotion-related impulsivity and risky decision-making: a systematic review and meta-regression[J]. Clin Psychol Rev, 2023, 100: 102232. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102232.
[9] Esteves M, Moreira PS, Sousa N, et al. Assessing impulsivity in humans and rodents: taking the translational road[J]. Front Behav Neurosci, 2021, 15: 647922. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2021.647922.
[10] Pantoja-Urbán AH, Richer S, Mittermaier A, et al. Gains and losses: resilience to social defeat stress in adolescent female mice[J]. Biol Psychiatry, 2024, 95(1): 37-47.
[11] 林无忌, 孟迎芳, 林静远. 任务转换中惯性激活对内隐记忆的影响: 来自ERPs的证据[J]. 心理科学, 2021, 44(3): 537-544. LIN Wuji, MENG Yingfang, LIN Jingyuan. Effects on implicit memory retrieval from inertial activation in switch task: an ERP study[J]. Journal of Psychological Science, 2021, 44(3): 537-544.
[12] Caglayan A, Stumpenhorst K, Winter Y. The stop signal task for measuring behavioral inhibition in mice with increased sensitivity and high-throughput operation[J]. Front Behav Neurosci, 2021, 15: 777767. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2021.777767.
[13] Fang Q, Frohlich F. Dissection of neuronal circuits underlying sustained attention with the five-choice serial reaction time task[J]. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 2023, 152: 105306. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105306.
[14] Lopez-Cruz L, Phillips BU, Hailwood JM, et al. Refining the study of decision-making in animals: differential effects of d-amphetamine and haloperidol in a novel touchscreen-automated rearing-effort discounting(RED)task and the fixed-ratio effort discounting(FRED)task[J]. Neuropsychopharmacology, 2024, 49(2): 422-432.
[15] Shimizu T, Nayar SG, Swire M, et al. Oligodendrocyte dynamics dictate cognitive performance outcomes of working memory training in mice[J]. Nat Commun, 2023, 14(1): 6499. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-42293-4.
[16] Hynes TJ, Chernoff CS, Hrelja KM, et al. Win-paired cues modulate the effect of dopamine neuron sensitization on decision making and cocaine self-administration: divergent effects across sex[J]. Biol Psychiatry, 2024, 95(3): 220-230.
[17] Yates JR, Horchar MJ, Kappesser JL, et al. The association between risky decision making and cocaine conditioned place preference is moderated by sex[J]. Drug Alcohol Depend, 2021, 228: 109079. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.109079.
[18] Ramsey LA, Holloman FM, Lee SS, et al. An operant social self-administration and choice model in mice[J]. Nat Protoc, 2023, 18(6): 1669-1686.
[19] Marzuki AA, Tomic I, Ip SHY, et al. Association of environmental uncertainty with altered decision-making and learning mechanisms in youths with obsessive-compulsive disorder[J]. JAMA Netw Open, 2021, 4(11): e2145564. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.36195.
[20] Kwak MJ, Kim WY, Jung SH, et al. Differential transcriptome profile underlying risky choice in a rat gambling task[J]. J Behav Addict, 2022, 11(3): 845-857.
[21] Truckenbrod LM, Betzhold SM, Wheeler AR, et al. Circuit and cell-specific contributions to decision making involving risk of explicit punishment in male and female rats[J]. J Neurosci, 2023, 43(26): 4837-4855.
[22] Ishino S, Kamada T, Sarpong GA, et al. Dopamine error signal to actively cope with lack of expected reward[J]. Sci Adv, 2023, 9(10): eade5420. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.ade5420.
[23] Cabeza L, Giustiniani J, Chabin T, et al. Modelling decision-making under uncertainty: a direct comparison study between human and mouse gambling data[J]. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol, 2020(31): 58-68.
[24] Yang M, Fu Q, Hu X, et al. Behavior of rats in a self-paced risky decision-making task based on definite probability[J]. Brain Sci, 2022, 12(6): 795. doi: 10.3390/brainsci12060795.
[25] Elsilä LV, Korhonen N, Hyytiä P, et al. Acute lysergic acid diethylamide does not influence reward-driven decision making of C57BL/6 mice in the Iowa gambling task[J]. Front Pharmacol, 2020, 11: 602770. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2020.602770.
[26] Tyree SM, Jennings KJ, Gonzalez OC, et al. Optogenetic and pharmacological interventions link hypocretin neurons to impulsivity in mice[J]. Commun Biol, 2023, 6(1): 74. doi: 10.1038/s42003-023-04409-w.
[27] Islas-Preciado D, Splinter TFL, Ibrahim M, et al. Sex and BDNF Val66Met polymorphism matter for exercise-induced increase in neurogenesis and cognition in middle-aged mice[J]. Horm Behav, 2023, 148: 105297. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2022.105297.
[28] Bleibel M, El Cheikh A, Sadier NS, et al. The effect of music therapy on cognitive functions in patients with Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials[J]. Alzheimers Res Ther, 2023, 15(1): 65. doi: 10.1186/s13195-023-01214-9.
[29] 于书卷, 王美娟, 陈丽, 等. 老年2型糖尿病患者轻度认知功能障碍的影响因素[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2022, 60(11): 108-112. YU Shujuan, WANG Meijuan, CHEN Li, et al. Influencing factors of mild cognitive impairment in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes[J]. Journal of Shandong University(Health Sciences), 2022, 60(11): 108-112.
[30] Gavelin HM, Dong C, Minkov R, et al. Combined physical and cognitive training for older adults with and without cognitive impairment: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. Ageing Res Rev, 2021, 66: 101232. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2020.101232.
[1] 杨晓倩 季静 刘娜 郭冬梅 崔癉. 三氯化铁及络合铁的抗银屑病作用研究[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2209, 47(6): 114-117.
[2] 段淑红 刘凯 尹海燕 赵世斗 刘丰韬. 凝集素受体WGA、RCA和ECL在过量维甲酸致昆明小鼠腭裂发生中的作用[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2209, 47(6): 47-.
[3] 刘笑含,石慧,赵振军. KLHL15基因对雄性小鼠睾丸和肝脏的影响[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2023, 61(2): 25-30.
[4] 张秀芳,李沛铮,张博涵,孙丛丛,刘艺鸣. 生长分化因子15在LPS诱导的帕金森病模型中的保护作用及机制[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(5): 1-7.
[5] 刘敏,张玉超,马小莉,刘昕宇,孙露,左丹,刘元涛. 孤核受体NR4A1在H2O2诱导小鼠肾脏足细胞损伤中的作用[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(5): 16-21.
[6] 菅天孜,陈诺,李理想,李延青,李艳. D-甘露糖和葡萄糖在溃疡性结肠炎小鼠中的作用[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(3): 24-28.
[7] 隋荣翠,韩书慧,张宪昭,范新泰,王娜,侯凌霄,许安廷. 小鼠内淋巴囊原代上皮细胞L型钙离子通道定位表达[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(10): 18-24.
[8] 龙婷婷,谢明,周璐,朱俊德. Noggin蛋白对小鼠脑缺血再灌注损伤后学习和记忆能力与齿状回结构的影响[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 15-23.
[9] 索东阳,申飞,郭皓,刘力畅,杨惠敏,杨向东. Tim-3在药物性急性肾损伤动物模型中的表达及作用机制[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 1-6.
[10] 王冉冉,朱天瑞,张凤,王敏,闵傲雪,李恒,李晓红. 长期淫羊藿苷治疗对APP/PS1小鼠神经炎症的影响[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 58(4): 71-77.
[11] 蔡秋景,张倩,何学佳,孙文丽,郭爱丽,张楠,朱薇薇. 气道平滑肌细胞通过TGF-β1/Smad3信号通路调节IL-33的表达参与哮喘[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 58(4): 78-83.
[12] 万秀霞,孙秀萍,佟晶洁. 大黄酚对结肠癌的抗肿瘤作用[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2019, 57(5): 74-79.
[13] 王聪,朱玲,万云焱,姚周虹,李德志,许小婷,徐鹏飞,林殿杰. 重组人血管内皮抑制素不同给药途径联合顺铂对小鼠Lewis肺癌的疗效[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2019, 57(5): 93-98.
[14] 苏晓慧,孙明琪,张梅洁,方丽,罗丹丹,陈国平,于春晓,管庆波. 穗加精液分析自动检测系统与血细胞计数板人工计数法在小鼠精液分析中的应用[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2018, 56(6): 1-5.
[15] 张同超,王志萍. 二硫化碳通过改变卵巢黄体巨噬细胞极化和功能导致胚胎植入障碍[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2018, 56(2): 80-87.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 张伟,谭文浩,李贻斌. 基于深度强化学习的四足机器人运动控制发展现状与展望[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(8): 61 -66 .
[2] 张洪彬,赵寒辉,王素霞,周鹏,贺青卿,王延群,丁伟平,柳刚. 303例甲状旁腺切除术围术期观察及术后严重低钙血症危险因素分析[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(9): 14 -20 .
[3] 栗英林,宋道庆,徐忠华. 应用生物信息学方法分析肾透明细胞癌中FKBP11的表达[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(9): 45 -51 .
[4] 高沛,毛昌琳,陈峰,何维,管勇,吕家驹,李善军,丁森泰. CT三维重建改良R.E.N.A.L.评分系统在50例腹腔镜肾部分切除术中的应用[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(9): 52 -57 .
[5] 黄艳,王旭霞,张文娟,刘超,张君 . 基因重组人生长激素(rh-GH)对大鼠牙周组织受正畸力后改建影响的实验研究[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2007, 45(9): 899 -902 .
[6] 谭迎春,陈子江,卢少明,高选. 用荧光探针JC-1检测氧化应激对精子线粒体膜电位的影响[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2006, 44(5): 447 -550 .
[7] 王运满,李长生,杨晓妮 . 化瘀克塞汤预处理对局灶性脑缺血大鼠HSP70表达的影响[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2008, 46(1): 31 -35 .
[8] 肖伟玲,林亚杰,牟东珍,孙萍,梁淑娟 . 分泌型人IL-1β表达载体的构建及在H7402细胞中的表达[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2008, 46(2): 119 -122 .
[9] 张秀娟,刘现锋,贺文广,杨竞 . 糖神胶囊防治糖尿病大鼠肾脏损害的实验研究[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2008, 46(1): 48 -51 .
[10] 邵琦,薛付忠,王洁贞,成玉,张桂琴. 人类群体遗传空间结构异质性变异函数模型[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2008, 46(2): 111 -114 .