Search

This welcome set of original and instructive papers illuminates and enriches the history of twentieth‐century ethology in multiple ways. It adds a wealth of actors, animals, methods, and places to those featured in previous treatments of ethology's development. Some of the papers extend the chronology beyond the heyday of ethology's disciplinary construction to consider exciting developments in the 1970s and beyond. Others consider animal behavior research programs pursued contemporaneously with but independently of mainline ethology's development from the 1930s through the 1960s. Another paper takes us inside an ethologist's archive of visual images to examine the importance of such images (and such a setting) for ethological practice. Collectively, the papers provide new opportunities to contemplate how research programs and disciplines evolve; the relations between concepts, practices, and places; ethology and politics, and much more. At the same time, the individuality of the papers is conspicuous. They have not been constructed on the same model. The authors have followed their own approaches, corresponding to their own, respective interests. A short commentary is not sufficient to do justice to each of them. Rather than attempt to review them one by one, I will consider a pair of themes that may help relate the papers to each other and to the history of ethology: (1) the ongoing challenge of defining ethology and identifying who the ethologists were (or are); (2) the practices and places of animal behavior study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Widely used rodent anxiety assays like the elevated plus maze (EPM) and the open field test (OFT) are conflated with rodents' natural preference for dark over light environments or protected over open spaces. The EPM and OFT have been used for decades but are often criticized by behavioral scientists. Years ago, two revised anxiety assays were designed to improve upon the "classic" tests by excluding the possibility to avoid or escape aversion. The 3‐D radial arm maze (3DR) and the 3‐D open field test (3Doft) utilize continual motivational conflict to better model anxiety; each consist of an open space connected to ambiguous paths toward uncertain escape. Despite their utility, the revised assays have not caught on. This could be because no study yet has directly compared classic and revised assays in the same animals. To remedy this, we contrasted behavior from a battery of assays (EPM, OFT, 3DR, 3Doft and a sociability test) in mice defined genetically by isogenic strain, or environmentally by postnatal experience. One major motivation for this work is to inform future studies by offering a transparent look at individual outcomes on these assays, as there is no one‐size‐fits‐all test to assess rodent anxiety‐like behavior. Findings suggest that classic assays may sufficiently characterize differences across genetically defined groups, but the revised 3DR may be advantageous for investigating more nuanced behavioral differences such as those stemming from environmental factors. Finally, exposure to multiple assays significantly affected sociability, highlighting concerns for designing and interpreting batteries of rodent behavioral tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]