Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2011 Aug;61(4):314-21.

Environmental enrichment of laboratory rodents: the answer depends on the question

Affiliations
Review

Environmental enrichment of laboratory rodents: the answer depends on the question

Linda A Toth et al. Comp Med. 2011 Aug.

Abstract

Efforts to refine the care and use of animals in research have been ongoing for many years and have led to general standardization of rodent models, particularly with regard to animal housing, genetics, and health status. Concurrently, numerous informal practices and recommendations have been promulgated with the laudable intent of promoting general animal wellbeing through so-called enrichment of the cage environment. However, the variety of housing conditions fostered by efforts at environmental enrichment (EE) complicates the goal of establishing standardized or even defined environments for laboratory rodents. Many studies over the years have sought to determine whether or how various enrichment strategies affect the behavior and physiology of laboratory rodents. The findings, conclusions, and interpretations of these studies are mixed, particularly with regard to their application across rodent species, strains, genders, and ages; whether or how they affect the animals and the science; and, in some cases, whether the effects are positive, negative, or neutral in terms of animal wellbeing. Crucial issues related to the application of EE in research settings include its poorly defined effect on the animals, the potential for increased variability in the data, poor definition across labs and in publications, and potential for animal or scientific harm. The complexities, uncertainties, interpretational conundrums, varying conclusions, and lack of consensus in the EE literature warrant careful assessment of the benefits and liabilities associated with implementing such interventions. Reliance on evidence, professional judgment, and performance standards are crucial in the development of EE strategies.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Abramov U, Puussaar T, Raud S, Kurrikoff K, Vasar E. 2008. Behavioural differences between C57BL/6 and 129S6/SvEv strains are reinforced by environmental enrichment. Neurosci Lett 443:223–227 - PubMed
    1. Abramov U, Raud S, Innos J, Lasner H, Kurrikoff K, Tuma T, Puussaar T, Okya K, Matsui T, Vasar E. 2008. Different housing conditions alter the behavioural phenotype of CCK(2) receptor-deficient mice. Behav Brain Res 193:108–116 - PubMed
    1. Armstrong KR, Clark TR, Peterson MR. 1998. Use of cornhusk nesting material to reduce aggression in caged mice. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci 37:64–66 - PubMed
    1. Augustsson H, Van de Weerd HA, Kruitwagen CLJH, Baumans V. 2003. Effects of enrichment on variation and results in the light/dark test. Lab Anim 37:328–340 - PubMed
    1. Bayne K. 2005. Potential for unintended consequences of environmental enrichment for laboratory animals and research results. ILAR J 46:129–139 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources