We acknowledge the audiovisual technician and video producer Rebeca De las Heras Ponce as well as the head veterinarian Gonzalo Moreno del Val, for the supervision of good practice during mouse experimentation.&#160;Work was funded by grants from the GVA Excellence Program (2022/8) and the Spanish Research Agency (PID2022143237OB-I00) to Isabel P&#233;rez-Ota&#241;o.

In the current study, adult (2-3 months old) C57BL/6J mice of both sexes were used. Animals were housed two to five per cage with ad libitum access to food and water in an animal unit under observation and maintained in a temperature-controlled environment on a 12 h dark/light cycle. All procedures were conducted in accordance with the European and Spanish regulations (2010/63/UE; RD 53/2013) and were approved by the Ethical Committee of the Generalitat Valenciana and the animal welfare committee of the Universidad Miguel Hern&#225;ndez.
1. Behavioral room setup
<ol>
	<li>Reserve the behavioral testing room every day at the same time and establish the list and order of mice to be used, as well as arrangements for their hosting.</li>
	<li>Keep the experimental mice outside the testing room so they do not hear the sounds of the air compressor and Erasmus Ladder tones when not being tested.</li>
	<li>Check that all components of the Erasmus Ladder system are in order and ready to use: the network router, the computer with the software (see Table of Materials), the air compressor, two goal boxes, and the ladder with the rungs properly positioned.</li>
	<li>Extensively clean the goal boxes, ladder, and rungs with water after each animal and with water and 70% ethanol at the end of each training day.</li>
</ol>
2. Behavioral test protocol
<ol>
	<li>Create an experiment and enter the protocol into the software (Supplementary Figure S1).
	<ol>
		<li>Turn on the software.</li>
		<li>To create an experiment, choose File | New experiment | New or Set up | Experiment protocol. 
		NOTE: The default protocol, used in this study, is named EMC and was designed at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam.</li>
		<li>Give the experiment a name and click OK.</li>
		<li>Check that the default EMC protocol selected consists of 4 days of undisturbed sessions (42 undisturbed trials per day) and 4 days of challenge sessions (42 daily mixed trials: undisturbed, CS-only (tone), US-only (obstacle), Paired (obstacle announced by tone) (see Figure 1B). In the right side panel, also check the light cue (3 s maximum duration), air cue (45 s maximum duration), and tailwind (Yes in all the trial types), used to encourage the mouse to cross the ladder, and the tone (250 ms, Yes only in CS-only and Paired trials).</li>
		<li>To create a different protocol, choose Set up | Experiment protocol | New | From scratch or Copy from the EMC protocol and simply modify it, editing the table lines related to number of sessions (days of experiment) and number and type of trials per day. 
		NOTE: Resting time, cues type and activation, duration, intensity, and interval can also be adapted according to the experimental questions.</li>
		<li>To open the session list and name the subjects, choose Setup | Session List.</li>
		<li>Click on Add Subjects and Variables.</li>
		<li>Enter each specific Mouse Identifier, Birth Date, Sex, Genotype, and relevant categories, following the ordered list of mice.</li>
	</ol>
	</li>
	<li>Start the session (Supplementary Figure S2).
	<ol>
		<li>Before starting, check that the software is open, then turn on the Ladder.</li>
		<li>Check that the air compressor is connected and switched on.</li>
		<li>To open the Acquisition window, open the Experiment created.</li>
		<li>Choose Acquisition | Open Acquisition.</li>
		<li>Place the mouse with the identifier indicated by the software in the starting goal box (right side of the ladder).</li>
		<li>Select the mouse identifier to acquire in the first session.</li>
		<li>Click on Start Acquisition.</li>
		<li>Press the red ladder menu knob 3x. Check that the session starts and automatically controls and records mouse movements until the end of the last trial of the session.</li>
	</ol>
	</li>
	<li>End the session.
	<ol>
		<li>Check that at the end of the 42nd trial, the display shows the messages Sending Data and Acquired.</li>
		<li>Return the mouse to the home cage.</li>
		<li>Clean the ladder and the goal boxes.</li>
		<li>Place the next mouse and repeat from step 2.2.6 onwards.</li>
	</ol>
	</li>
	<li>Perform the selected type of session every day until the end of the protocol. Repeat steps 2.2 and 2.3 every day according to the selected protocol.</li>
	<li>Export the data (Supplementary Figure S2).
	<ol>
		<li>To visualize the recorded data, choose from the Analysis menu, Trial Statistics, Session statistics, and Group Statistic &#38; Charts. 
		NOTE: Data can be downloaded as a spreadsheet with data for individual trials and the means of the same trial types within a session. Sessions can also be filtered by variables chosen for specific analysis.</li>
		<li>Click on the Export button at the top-right corner choosing the file format (spreadsheet) and folder location.</li>
		<li>Right-click on the automatically generated charts and select Save to File as *.jpg.</li>
	</ol>
	</li>
</ol>
3. Data analysis
NOTE: A list of parameters is automatically measured by the Erasmus Ladder based on the instantaneous recording of the activities of the touch-sensitive sensors. For analysis, output parameters selected by the user are organized and processed in the spreadsheets. Along with the software-generated graphs, users can generate graphs using the graphing software of choice to visualize specific changes in different parameters over sessions.
<ol>
	<li>Choose specific parameters to analyze basal motivation or anxiety states, sensory responses, motor performance, and fine motor learning over the first 4 days.
	<ol>
		<li>Select and plot control parameters, including resting time in the goal box and time to exit the goal box after the resting period in response to light and air cues (Figure 2A). 
		NOTE: Resting times or response to cues are relatively constant in WT mice. Other parameters such as frequency of exits are basically negligible in WT mice-the animals rarely leave the rest box without the cues or come back once in the ladder, resulting in frequencies of exit equal to 1 per trial. If an animal goes out before cues are applied, an airflow gets activated forcing the mouse to return to the goal box; this is not counted as a trial by the software.</li>
		<li>Select and plot the time on ladder after cues, measured as the time spent crossing the ladder once the mouse leaves the goal box (Figure 2B). 
		NOTE: A power non-linear regression is a robust method for evaluating learning. The Pearson or Spearman coefficients (R) will provide a measure of whether the data fitting is good (R values close to one when the animals learn/improve over sessions; R values close to 0 imply that the data are constant and mice do not learn).</li>
		<li>Select and plot stepping pattern parameters such as the percentage of trials with missteps as a sensitive learning parameter (Figure 2C).
		<ol>
			<li>Define a correct step as a step from a high rung to another high rung (H-H), irrespective of the length of the step. Consider step types that involve a lower rung as&#160;missteps.</li>
			<li>Divide correct steps and missteps into short and long steps, backsteps, and jumps depending on the length and directionality of the step between the rungs pressed (see Figure 1A).</li>
		</ol>
		</li>
	</ol>
	</li>
	<li>Select and plot specific parameters to evaluate challenged motor learning (US-only trials) and associative learning (paired trials) over the last 4 days.
	<ol>
		<li>Select and plot the time on ladder after cues (Figure 3).</li>
		<li>Select and plot the percentage of trials with missteps (Figure 4A).</li>
		<li>Select and plot the pre and post perturbation step times, defined as a ms precision difference between rung activation just before (control step) and after the obstacle (adapted step) on the same side of the ladder (Figure 4B). 
		NOTE: Pre vs post-perturbation step times analysis should be performed to compare data inside each type of session. The parameter measures the ability of the mice to predict and overcome the obstacles during associative learning.</li>
	</ol>
	</li>
	<li>Analyze the data with dedicated statistical software (e.g., SigmaPlot). Perform a power non-linear regression analysis of data collected from the same trial type across sessions to describe the learning process more efficiently and use Two-Way Repeated Measures (RM) ANOVA to compare between trial types.</li>
</ol>

Automated Assessment of Fine Motor Performance in Mice Using the Erasmus Ladder

<ol>
	<li>Brooks, S. P., Dunnett, S. B. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Tests+to+assess+motor+phenotype+in+mice:+a+user's+guide.">Tests to assess motor phenotype in mice: a user's guide.</a> Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 10 (7), 519-529 (2009).</li><li>. Available from: <a target="_blank" href="https://www.noldus.com/erasmusladder">https://www.noldus.com/erasmusladder</a> (2023)</li><li>Cupido, A., et al. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=.">.</a> Detecting cerebellar phenotypes with the Erasmus ladder[dissertation]. , (2009).</li><li>Van Der Giessen, R. S. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Role+of+olivary+electrical+coupling+in+cerebellar+motor+learning.">Role of olivary electrical coupling in cerebellar motor learning.</a> Neuron. 58 (4), 599-612 (2008).</li><li>Vinueza Veloz, M. F. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=The+effect+of+an+mGluR5+inhibitor+on+procedural+memory+and+avoidance+discrimination+impairments+in+Fmr1+KO+mice.">The effect of an mGluR5 inhibitor on procedural memory and avoidance discrimination impairments in Fmr1 KO mice.</a> Genes Brain Behav. 11 (3), 325-331 (2012).</li><li>Vinueza Veloz, M. F. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Cerebellar+control+of+gait+and+interlimb+coordination.">Cerebellar control of gait and interlimb coordination.</a> Brain Struct. Funct. 220 (6), 3513-3536 (2015).</li><li>Sathyanesan, A., Kundu, S., Abbah, J., Gallo, V. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Neonatal+brain+injury+causes+cerebellar+learning+deficits+and+Purkinje+cell+dysfunction.">Neonatal brain injury causes cerebellar learning deficits and Purkinje cell dysfunction.</a> Nat. Commun. 9 (1), 3235 (2018).</li><li>Sathyanesan, A., Gallo, V. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Cerebellar+contribution+to+locomotor+behavior:+A+neurodevelopmental+perspective.">Cerebellar contribution to locomotor behavior: A neurodevelopmental perspective.</a> Neurobiol. Learn Mem. 165, 106861 (2019).</li><li>McKenzie, I. A. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Motor+skill+learning+requires+active+central+myelination.">Motor skill learning requires active central myelination.</a> Science. 346 (6207), 318-322 (2014).</li><li>Xiao, L. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Rapid+production+of+new+oligodendrocytes+is+required+in+the+earliest+stages+of+motor-skill+learning.">Rapid production of new oligodendrocytes is required in the earliest stages of motor-skill learning.</a> Nat. Neurosci. 19 (9), 1210-1217 (2016).</li></ol>

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The Erasmus Ladder presents major advantages for motor phenotype assessment beyond current approaches. Testing is easy to conduct, automated, reproducible, and allows researchers to assess various aspects of motor behavior separately using a single mouse cohort. In the current study, reproducibility allowed the generation of robust data with a small number of WT mice taking advantage of the features of the device, experimental design, and analysis methods. For instance, when compared to traditional beam-walk assays, the ...

A variety of tests have been developed to assess motor phenotypes in mice. Each test gives information on a specific aspect of motor behavior1. For example, the open field test informs on general locomotion and anxiety state; the rotarod and walking beam tests on coordination and balance; footprint analysis is about gait; the treadmill or running wheel on forced or voluntary physical exercise; and the complex wheel is about motor skill learning. To analyze mouse motor phenotypes, investigators must perform these tests sequentially, which involves a lot of time and effort and often several animal cohorts. If there is information at the cellular or circuitry level, the investigator normally opts for a test that monitors a related aspect and follows from there. However, paradigms that discriminate different aspects of motor behavior in an automated way are lacking.
This article describes a protocol to use the Erasmus Ladder2,3, a system that allows comprehensive assessment of a variety of motor learning features in mice. The main advantages are the reproducibility and sensitivity of the method, along with the ability to titrate motor difficulty and to separate deficits in motor performance from impaired associative motor learning. The main component consists of a horizontal ladder with alternate high (H) and low (L) rungs equipped with touch-sensitive sensors that detect the position of the mouse on the ladder. The ladder is made of 2 x 37 rungs (L, 6 mm; H, 12 mm) spaced 15 mm apart from each other and positioned in a left-right alternating pattern with 30 mm gaps (Figure 1A). Rungs can be moved individually to generate various levels of difficulty, that is, creating an obstacle (raising the high rungs by 18 mm). Coupled with an automated recording system and associating modifications of the rung pattern with sensory stimuli, the Erasmus ladder tests for fine motor learning and adaptation of motor performance in response to environmental challenges (appearance of a higher rung to simulate an obstacle, an unconditioned stimulus [US]) or association with sensory stimuli (a tone, a conditioned stimulus [CS]). Testing involves two distinct phases, each assessing improvement in motor performance over 4 days, during which mice undergo a session of 42 consecutive trials per day. In the initial phase, mice are trained to navigate the ladder to assess &#34;fine&#34; or &#34;skilled&#34; motor learning. The second phase consists of interleaved trials where an obstacle in the form of a higher rung is presented in the path of the moving animal. The perturbation can be unexpected to assess &#34;challenged&#34; motor learning (US-only trials) or announced by an auditory tone to assess &#34;associative&#34; motor learning (Paired trials).
The Erasmus ladder has been developed relatively recently2,3. It has not been extensively used because setting up and optimizing the protocol required focused effort and was specifically designed to assess cerebellar-dependent associative learning without exploring in detail its potential to reveal other motor deficits. To date, it has been validated for its ability to unveil subtle motor impairments linked to cerebellar dysfunction in mice3,4,5,6,7,8. For instance, connexin36 (Cx36) knockout mice, where gap junctions are impaired in olivary neurons, display firing deficits due to lack of electrotonic coupling but the motor phenotype had been hard to pinpoint. Testing using the Erasmus ladder suggested that the role of inferior olivary neurons in a cerebellar motor learning task is to encode precise temporal coding of stimuli and facilitate learning-dependent responses to unexpected events3,4. Fragile X Messenger Ribonucleoprotein 1 (Fmr1) knockout mouse, a model for Fragile-X-Syndrome (FXS), exhibits a well-known cognitive impairment along with milder defects in procedural memory formation. Fmr1 knockouts showed no significant differences in step times, missteps per trial, or motor performance improvement over sessions in the Erasmus Ladder but failed to adjust their walking pattern to the suddenly appearing obstacle compared to their wild-type (WT) littermates, confirming specific procedural and associative memory deficits3,5. Furthermore, cell-specific mouse mutant lines with defects in cerebellar function, including impaired Purkinje cell output, potentiation, and molecular layer interneuron or granule cell outputs, exhibited problems in motor coordination with altered acquisition of efficient step patterns and in the number of steps taken to cross the ladder6. Neonatal brain injury causes cerebellar learning deficits and Purkinje cell dysfunction that could also be detected with the Erasmus Ladder7,8.
In this video, we present a comprehensive step-by-step guide, which details the setup of the behavioral room, the behavioral test protocol, and subsequent data analysis. This report is crafted to be accessible and user-friendly and is designed specifically to assist newcomers. This protocol provides insight into different phases of motor training and expected motor patterns that mice adopt. Finally, the article proposes a systematic workflow for data analysis using a powerful non-linear regression approach, complete with valuable recommendations and suggestions for adapting and applying the protocol in other research contexts.

<table border="1" fo:keep-together.within-page="1" fo:keep-with-next.within-page="always">
	<tbody>
		<tr>
			<td>C57BL/6J mice (Mus musculus)</td>
			<td>Charles Rivers</td>
			<td></td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Erasmus Ladder device</td>
			<td>Noldus, Wageningen, Netherlands</td>
			<td></td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Erasmus Ladder 2.0 software</td>
			<td>Noldus, Wageningen, Netherlands</td>
			<td></td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Excel software</td>
			<td>Microsoft&#160;</td>
			<td></td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Sigmaplot software</td>
			<td>Systat Software, Inc.</td>
			<td></td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
	</tbody>
</table>

monitoring fine and associative motor learning in mice using the erasmus ladder

Behavior is shaped by actions, and actions necessitate motor skills such as strength, coordination, and learning. None of the behaviors essential for sustaining life would be possible without the ability to transition from one position to another. Unfortunately, motor skills can be compromised in a wide array of diseases. Therefore, investigating the mechanisms of motor functions at the cellular, molecular, and circuit levels, as well as understanding the symptoms, causes, and progression of motor disorders, is crucial for developing effective treatments. Mouse models are frequently employed for this purpose.
This article describes a protocol that allows the monitoring of various aspects of motor performance and learning in mice using an automated tool called the Erasmus Ladder. The assay involves two phases: an initial phase where mice are trained to navigate a horizontal ladder built of irregular rungs (&#34;fine motor learning&#34;), and a second phase where an obstacle is presented in the path of the moving animal. The perturbation can be unexpected (&#34;challenged motor learning&#34;) or preceded by an auditory tone (&#34;associative motor learning&#34;). The task is easy to conduct and is fully supported by automated software.
This report shows how different readouts from the test, when analyzed with sensitive statistical methods, allow fine monitoring of mouse motor skills using a small cohort of mice. We propose that the method will be highly sensitive to evaluate motor adaptations driven by environmental modifications as well as early-stage subtle motor deficits in mutant mice with compromised motor functions.

Author Spotlight: Unveiling Neural Mechanisms Through Automated Evaluation of Motor Learning and Myelin Plasticity Studies Using the Erasmus Ladder 

Monitoring Fine and Associative Motor Learning in Mice Using the Erasmus Ladder

In the lab, we study brain plasticity. One of our goals is to identify the neural circuits and mechanisms that are engaged and understand what's wrong in disease, so we can find suitable targets for interventions that are lacking. One of our critical needs is to have robust training protocols to evaluate, to induce plasticity, and evaluate the impact of genetic manipulations in healthy mice and in disease models.Current research needs sensitive, versatile, and automatic techniques to assess mice behavior. We are mainly interested in motor behavioral learning, and traditional tests requires sequential implementation, which consumes significant time and resources. Also, traditional tests don't always have enough accuracy.However, Erasmus Ladder allows motor learning future explanation and analysis in a single automated setup. While existing paradigms often focus on specific aspects of motor behavior, our approach aims to discriminate between fine motor learning, challenge motor learning, and associative motor learning in an automated and non invasive way, filling a gap in current methodologies. Testing is easy to conduct, automated, reproducible, and allow researchers to study different aspects of motor behavior separately using a single mouse cohort.The automatic software and adjustable parameters announce the precision of data collection and analysis, and also the versatility and customization of the protocol according to the scientific question. Our lab will focus on further refining the Erasmus Ladder protocols, combining cellular and molecular techniques to investigate motor adaptation and the underlying neuronal mechanisms. In particular, one of our projects focuses on myelin plasticity, a phenomenon triggered during complex motor skill learning that could help finding cures for patients with dysmyelinating disease.

The Erasmus Ladder device, setup, and protocol applied are presented in Figure 1. The protocol consists of four undisturbed and four challenge sessions (42 trials each). Each trial is one run on the ladder between the starting and ending goal boxes. At the beginning of the session, a mouse is placed in one of the starting boxes. After a set time of 15 &#177; 5 s (&#34;resting&#34; state), the light is turned on (cue 1, for a maximum of 3 s). A light air cue (cue 2, 45 s maximum) is then appl...

Watch this Scientific Journal Video about Unveiling Neural Mechanisms Through Automated Evaluation of Motor Learning and Myelin Plasticity Studies Using the Erasmus Ladder at JoVE.com

This article presents a protocol that allows a non-invasive and automated assessment of fine motor performance, as well as adaptive and associative motor learning upon challenges, using a device called the Erasmus Ladder. Task difficulty can be titrated to detect motor impairment ranging from major to subtle degrees.

Behavior is shaped by actions, and actions necessitate motor skills such as strength, coordination, and learning. None of the behaviors essential for ...

monitoring-fine-associative-motor-learning-mice-using-erasmus

Research

JoVE Journal

Neuroscience

Setting Up and Implementing Behavioral Testing in Mice Using the Erasmus Ladder System

To begin, place the experimental mice outside the testing room. In the testing room, ensure that all components of the Erasmus ladder system, including the network router, the computer with the necessary software, the air compressor, two goal boxes, and the ladder with all its rungs are ready to use. Turn on the Erasmus ladder software.To create an experiment protocol, choose File, then New Experiment. Click on File, and then New. Give the experiment a name and click Okay.Next, check that the default EMC protocol consists of four days of undisturbed sessions with 42 undisturbed trials per day, and four days of challenge sessions with 42 daily mixed trials, including undisturbed conditioned stimulus or CS-only tone, unconditioned stimulus or US-only obstacle, paired obstacle announced by tone. In the right side panel set the light cue, air cue, and tailwind, which are used to encourage the mouse to cross the ladder, and the tone. To create a different protocol, choose Setup, then Experiment Protocol and select New.Now from scratch or copied from the EMC protocol, edit the table lines related to the number of sessions and number and type of trials per day. To open the session list and name the subjects, under Setup, click Session List. Then click on Add Subjects and Variables.Enter each specific mouse identifier, birth date, sex, genotype, and relevant categories, following the ordered list of mice. Before starting the session, turn on the ladder. Ensure that the air compressor is connected and switched on.Open the previously created experiment protocol and from the acquisition window, choose Open Acquisition. Place the mouse with the identifier indicated by the software in the starting goal box. Select the mouse identifier to acquire in the first session and click on Start Acquisition.Press the red ladder menu knob three times to initiate the session. Monitor the start of the session and track mouse movements until the last trial of the session. After the completion of the 42nd trial, ensure the display shows messages Sending Data and Acquired.Then return the mouse to its home cage and clean the ladder and goal boxes. To visualize the recorded data, from the Analysis menu, select Trial Statistics, Session Statistics, and Group Statistic in Charts. Click on the Export button, then select the file format as spreadsheet in folder location.Right click on the automatically generated charts and select Save to file as star.png. Open the saved spreadsheet and choose parameters to assess basal motivation, anxiety states, sensory responses, motor performance, and fine motor learning during the initial four days. Select and plot control parameters, including resting time in the goal box, and time to leave the goal box after the resting period in response to light in their cues.Choose and plot the time on the ladder after cues, measured as the time spent crossing the ladder once the mouse leaves the goal box. Select and plot stepping pattern parameters, including the percentage of trials with missteps as an indicator of learning sensitivity. Next, choose parameters to evaluate challenged motor learning in US-only trials and associative learning in paired trials over the last four days.Select and plot the time on the ladder after cues. Then plot the percentage of trials with missteps. Finally, plot the pre-and post-perturbation step times, defining the millisecond precision difference between rung activation before and after the obstacle on the same ladder side.In wild-type mice, resting times and responses to the light cue remained consistent from days one to four. However, the response time to the air cue showed a slight decrease between days one and two. The time taken to cross the ladder exhibited a significant learning curve.Missteps during ladder crossing decreased over days one to four in undisturbed sessions. Mouse performance improved from days five to eight, yielding a significant learning curve across US-only sessions. In associative learning trials with an obstacle paired with a tone, mice completed sessions faster than in US-only trials.In control trials with tone-only presentations, a significant learning curve resembling that of undisturbed sessions was observed. The percentage of trials with missteps remained constant in US-only trials, while it significantly decreased in paired trials. A notable difference was seen between pre-and post-perturbation step times in US-only trials, but not in paired trials indicating, faster learning to overcome the obstacle in the paired trials.

912 Views.  Spain - Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas and Universidad Miguel Hernández.  This article presents a protocol that allows a non-invasive and automated assessment of fine motor performance, as well as adaptive and associative motor learning upon challenges, using a device called the Erasmus Ladder. Task difficulty can be titrated to detect motor impairment ranging from major to subtle degrees. 

Automated Assessment of Fine Motor Performance in Mice Using the Erasmus Ladder

Podsumowanie