Ultrasonic Vocalization Analysis as a Novel Metric to Assess Cage Enrichment in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laboratory rodent housing conditions vary significantly across laboratories and facilities. Variation in housing can be associated with animal stress leading to study variability and the subsequent inability to replicate experimental findings. Optimization and standardization of animal housing are necessary to promote animal welfare and data consistency, thereby reducing the number of animals necessary to detect treatment effects. While interest in environmental enrichment is increasing, many studies do not examine the behavior of animals in the home cage, neglecting important aspects of enrichment. To determine how increased vertical home cage area affects animal welfare, double-decker cages (enriched), which allow rats to upright stand, were compared with standard single-level cages, which impede the ability to upright stand. Home cage welfare was assessed by analyzing ultrasonic vocalizations, fecal corticosterone, upright standing, and fighting. Ultrasonic vocalization was further explored by analyses of call type as defined by a 14 call-type schematic. Rats housed in enriched cages spent more time fighting, produced fewer 50 kHz calls, and had higher levels of fecal corticosterone. Rats in standard cages attempted to upright stand more often but remained upright for a shorter amount of time due to the height limitation imposed by standard cages. In addition, standard cages restrict some naturalistic behaviors such as upright standing and reduce fighting, which may be attributable to their single-tier organization and floor space. Enriched cages permit rats to engage in normal ethological behavior but also increase fighting. This study demonstrates that housing conditions have a meaningful impact on multiple measures of animal affect. When considering study design, researchers should be aware of how housing conditions affect animal subjects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".