Abstract
Widely used rodent anxiety assays like the elevated plus maze (EPM) and the open field test (OFT) are often conflated with rodents' natural preference for dark over light environments or protected over open spaces. The EPM and OFT have been used for many decades, yet have also been criticized by generations of behavioral scientists. Several years ago, two revised anxiety assays were designed to improve upon the "classic" tests by excluding the possibility to avoid or escape aversive areas of each maze. The 3-D radial arm maze (3DR) and the 3-D open field test (3Doft) each consist of an open space connected to ambiguous paths toward uncertain escape. This introduces continual motivational conflict, thereby increasing external validity as an anxiety model. But despite this improvement, the revised assays have not caught on. One issue may be that studies to date have not directly compared classic and revised assays in the same animals. To remedy this, we contrasted behavior in a battery of assays (EPM, OFT, 3DR, 3Doft, and a sociability test) in mice defined either genetically by isogenic strain, or environmentally by postnatal experience. Findings indicate that the optimal assay to assess anxiety-like behavior may depend upon grouping variable (e.g. genetic versus environment). We argue that the 3DR may be the most ecologically valid of the anxiety assays tested, while the OFT and 3Doft provided the least useful information. Finally, exposure to multiple assays significantly affected sociability measures, raising concerns for designing and interpreting batteries of behavioral tests in mice.