Back

Towards Fully Automated Investigation of Social Learning in Mice

Lang, B.; Thöne-Reineke, C.; Hellwich, O.; Lewejohann, L.

2025-09-03 animal behavior and cognition
10.1101/2025.08.31.673387 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Mice have been demonstrated to learn from each other in social interactions, the extent to which this takes place and the strategies involved, however, largely remain to be elucidated beyond spatially and temporally confined tests of social memory retention. Here, we present a method which utilizes and modifies 1) a commercially available tool for automated behavioral testing, the IntelliCage and 2) an open-source solution for 24/7 live animal tracking, the Live Mouse Tracker, to create a powerful method for the investigation of learning behavior in semi-naturalistic group settings. We see a wide range of possible applications, such as for instance the investigation of learning in social interactions, which we present here as an example. In the present study, co-learning did not facilitate place learning over individual learning. While automated annotation of behaviors was effective, markerless animal identification proved unreliable in a highly enriched environment with manifold opportunity of occlusion from video tracking. In response, we here present a rationale for identifying the reliable portion of tracking data, to which we confine the behavioral analysis. Co-learning animals engaged more often in some prosocial interactions with their teammates than with other animals, but they did overall not interact with each other more frequently than with individual learners. Correlative analysis of learning behavior and social interactions did not reveal any particular association between behavior and learning success. While the mechanisms of social learning in mice could not be conclusively elucidated within the scope of this study, we report on the development of a promising tool for presenting manifold learning tasks to mice while tracking their individual and social behaviors in a fully automated manner. Further, we discuss limitations of the current configuration and present an outlook on further improving the method.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.