On November 5, 2014, InsideScientific hosted a webinar sponsored by TSE Systems discussing the challenge of behavioral phenotyping individual rodents within a social home cage environment. Speakers David P. Wolfer, Ewelina Knapska, and Holger Russig discussed the use of IntelliCage, a home-cage system able to conduct automated, high-throughput behavioral and cognitive testing. Automation technology minimizes the need for human intervention, reducing workload to the researcher while improving data reproducibility and animal welfare.

Several research applications are discussed, including profiling mice with hippocampal lesions based on spontaneous behaviors and spatial learning, characterizing appetitively and aversively motivated learning in MMP-9 knockout mice, and assessing cognitive rigidity in a valproic acid-induced mouse model of autism.

Follow the links below to access key educational points of the webinar…

<< Animal Behavioral Neuroscience 2018 is coming soon – REGISTER HERE >>

Dr. Holger Russig

  • 03:44  Challenges in behavioral and cognitive testing in mice
  • 05:46  Key IntelliCage features
  • 09:25  The three components of IntelliCage software: the Designer, Controller, and Analyzer
  • 11:29  Benefits of the Intellicage
  • 16:39  Dr. Holger Russig summary

Dr. Ewelina Knapska

  • 39:46  Comparing classical behavioral tests to IntelliCage, and appetitively and aversively motivated learning in well-balanced conditions
  • 46:03  Involvement of MMP-9 in appetitively and aversively motivated learning
  • 52:15  Mouse models of autism and the assessment of cognitive rigidity
  • 58:40  Dr. Ewelina Knapska summary

Dr. David P Wolfer

  • 18:02  The 3 stages of mouse adaptation to the IntelliCage
  • 18:50  Parameters measured during adaptation stages to characterize spontaneous behavior
  • 21:37  Comparison of spontaneous behavior profiles in different strains
  • 23:36  Effect of hippocampal lesions on spontaneous behavior profile and learning
  • 28:07  Example battery of hippocampus-dependent spatial learning tasks
  • 33:21  Tests to address motor impulsivity and reaction time
  • 37:04  David P. Wolfer summary


  • 60:04  Considering challenges relating to fighting and hierarchy, such as a dominant male controlling a limited resource such as sucrose, how is it possible to generate independent data in the IntelliCage?
  • 62:33  How well do 129 mice learn in the IntelliCage?
  • 63:38  Can the IntelliCage be used for rats?
  • 64:42  With regards to the data you shared, can you comment on mice learning by observation?
  • 68:43  How are shams measured together with different cohorts of mice, whether it’s in the same cage or in different cages?



  1. Smutek M, Turbasa M, Sikora M, et al. A Model of Alcohol Drinking under an Intermittent Access Schedule Using Group-Housed Mice. Taffe M, ed. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(5):e96787. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0096787.
  2. Lipp HP, Litvin O, Galsworthy M, et al. Automated behavioral analysis of mice using INTELLICAGE: Inter-laboratory comparisons and validation with exploratory behavior and spatial learning. Proceedings for Measuring Behavior. 2005.
  3. Konopka W, Kiryk A, Novak M, et al. MicroRNA loss enhances learning and memory in mice. Journal of Neuroscience. 2010;30(44):14835-14842.
  4. Herrera VLM, Decano JL, Bagamasbad P, Kufahl T, Steffen M, Ruiz-Opazo N. Sex-specific hippocampus-dependent cognitive deficits and increased neuronal autophagy in DEspR haploinsufficiency in mice . Physiological Genomics. 2008;35(3):316-329. doi:10.1152/physiolgenomics.00044.2008.
  5. Vannoni E, Voikar V, Colacicco G, et al. Spontaneous behavior in the social homecage discriminates strains, lesions, and mutations in mice. Journal of Neuroscience Methods. 2014;30(234):26-37.
  6. Kobayashi Y, Sano Y, Vannoni E, et al. Genetic dissection of medial habenula–interpeduncular nucleus pathway function in mice. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 2013;7:17. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00017.
  7. Weyer SW, Klevanski M, Delekate A, et al. APP and APLP2 are essential at PNS and CNS synapses for transmission, spatial learning and LTP. The EMBO Journal. 2011;30(11):2266-2280.
  8. Knapska E, Walasek G, Nikolaev E, et al. (2006) Differential involvement of the central amygdala in appetitive versus aversive learning. Learning and Memory. 2006;13: 192-200.
  9. Knapska E, Lioudyno V, Kiryk A, et al.Reward learning requires activity of matrix metalloproteinase-9 in the central amygdala. Journal of Neuroscience. 2013;33(36):14591–14600.
  10. DSM-V, American Psychiatric Association, 2013
  11. Puscian A, Leski S, Gorkiewicz T, et al.A novel automated be