Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 25, 2026
Novel Object Exploration as a Potential Assay for Higher Order Repetitive Behaviors in Mice
Published on: August 20, 2016
Dyadic social interaction of C57BL/6 mice versus interaction with a toy mouse: conditioned place preference/aversion,
Barbara S Pinheiro1, Simon S Seidl, Eva Habazettl
1aDepartment of General Psychiatry and Social Psychiatry, Experimental Psychiatry Unit, Medical University of Innsbruck bDepartment of Psychology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Abstract:
Impaired social interaction is a hallmark symptom of many psychiatric diseases, including dependence syndromes (substance use disorders). Helping the addict reorient her/his behavior away from the drug of abuse toward social interaction would be of considerable therapeutic benefit. To study the neural basis of such a reorientation, we have developed several animal models in which the attractiveness of a dyadic (i.e. one-to-one) social interaction (DSI) can be compared directly with that of cocaine as a prototypical drug of abuse. Our models are based on the conditioned place preference (CPP) paradigm. In an ongoing effort to validate our experimental paradigms in C57BL/6 mice to make use of the plethora of transgenic models available in this genus, we found the following: (a) DSI with a live mouse produced CPP, whereas an interaction with an inanimate mouse-like object (i.e. a 'toy mouse'; toy mouse interaction) led to conditioned place aversion - but only in the Jackson substrain (C57BL/6J). (b) In the NIH substrain (C57BL/6N), both DSI and toy mouse interaction produced individual aversion in more than 50% of the tested mice. (c) Four 15 min DSI episodes did not result in the development of an observable hierarchy, that is, dominance/subordination behavior in the overwhelming majority (i.e. 30 of 32) of the tested Jackson mouse pairs. Therefore, dominance/subordination does not seem to be a confounding variable in our paradigm, at least not in C57BL/6J mice. Respective data for NIH mice were too limited to allow any conclusion. The present findings indicate that (a) DSI with a live mouse produces CPP to a greater degree than an interaction with an inanimate object resembling a mouse and that (b) certain substrain differences with respect to CPP/aversion to DSI do exist between the Jax and NIH substrain of C57BL/6 mice. These differences have to be considered when choosing a proper mouse substrain model for investigating the neural basis of DSI reward versus drug reward.
