Comparison of automated video tracking systems in the open field test: ANY-Maze versus EthoVision XT.

BACKGROUND

ANY-Maze and EthoVision XT are two commonly used automated animal tracking systems employed to produce reliable and consistent results in behavioural paradigms. Data obtained with both tracking systems have presented differences, particularly when varying laboratory lighting conditions and contrasts of mice coat colour against the arena background in both water maze and tunnel maze.

METHOD

In this study, two fluorescent lighting conditions (58 and 295 lux), local to our laboratory, and different coat-coloured mouse lines (C57BL/6 J - black; CD1 - agouti; C3H/HeN - white) were used to compare reproducibility in measures of tracking systems (ANY-Maze versus EthoVision) in the open field test.

RESULTS

Differences between systems were reliant on the contrasts between coat and background colours. Surprisingly, black animals presented the greatest differences in read-outs between tracking systems, regardless of lighting conditions. Data from both video observation tools differed mainly in exploration-related parameters (distance travelled), but less in more static proxies (time in thigmotaxis zone). Overall, EthoVision XT returned higher values for most parameters analysed relative to ANY-Maze. More inconsistencies in recording and analysis can be expected from other video recording systems.

CONCLUSION

Data analysis software provides an additional source of variation in need of consideration when reproducibility in behavioural neuroscience is required.