Is there a bias in spatial maze judgment bias tests? Individual differences in subjects’ novelty response can affect test results

• Published in: Behavioural brain research Vol. 407; p. 113262
• Main Authors: Jardim, Veridiana, Verjat, Aurélie, Féron, Christophe, Châline, Nicolas, Rödel, Heiko G.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier B.V 11.06.2021
• Subjects: Ambiguous cue; Animals; Behavior, Animal - physiology; Cognitive bias test; Exploration tendency; Exploratory Behavior - physiology; Judgment - physiology; Male; Maze Learning - physiology; Mound-building mouse; Mus spicilegus; Personality; Personality - physiology; Ambiguous cue; Personality; Mus spicilegus; Mound-building mouse; Cognitive bias test; Exploration tendency
• DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2021.113262
• ISSN: 0166-4328; 1872-7549

•Judgment bias tests are useful tools for the assessment of internal states.•Spatial settings linking ambiguity with novelty may be biased by subjects’ personality.•High explorers showed longer latencies to the ambiguous cue as they explored more.•Longer latencies were possibly driven by a motivational conflict in high explorers.•However, these longer latencies did not mirror subjects’ pessimist judgment bias. Judgment bias tests have become an important tool in the assessment of animals’ affective states. Subjects are first trained to discriminate between two cues associated with a positive and a less-positive outcome. After successful training, they are confronted with an ambiguous cue, and responses are used for judgment bias assessment. In spatial settings, ambiguous cue presentation is typically linked with novelty, i.e. to yet unexplored areas or areas to which the animal has a low degree of habituation. We hypothesized that in such settings, responses to ambiguity might be biased by the animals’ perception of novelty. We conducted judgment bias tests in mound-building mice phenotyped for their exploration tendency. After subjects had learned to distinguish between the positively and less-positively rewarded arms of a maze, a new ambiguous middle-arm was introduced. During the first test trial, more exploratory, less neophobic individuals displayed higher bidirectional locomotion in the ambiguous arm, indicating intensive exploration. Although this resulted in longer latencies to the reward in more exploratory animals, we conclude that this did not reflect a ‘more pessimistic judgment of ambiguity’. Indeed, during the following two trials, with increasing habituation to the ambiguous arm, the direction of the association was inversed compared to the first trial, as more exploratory individuals showed relatively shorter approach latencies. We suggest that in spatial test settings associating the ambiguous cue to novel areas, results can be confounded by subjects’ personality-dependent motivational conflict between exploration and reaching the reward. Findings obtained under such conditions should be interpreted with care.