A head mountable deep brain stimulation device for laboratory animals

Deep brain stimulation has emerged as an effective method to treat certain medical conditions. Electrical charges are injected into the target tissue through a conducting electrode exciting the tissue. A variety of DBS devices have been developed based on different operation principles. Majority of these devices, however, employ complex circuitry and are bulky. In clinical trials, laboratory animals need to freely move around and perform activities whilst receiving brain stimulation for days. This paper presents a simple lightweight head mountable deep brain stimulation device that can be carried by the animal during the course of a clinical trial. The device produces continuous current pulses of specific characteristics. It employs passive charge balancing to minimize undesirable effects on the target tissue. The device is constructed and its performance tested.

Cane toad or computer mouse? Real and computer-simulated laboratory exercises in physiology classes

Traditional practical classes in many countries are being rationalised to reduce costs. The challenge for university educators is to provide students with the opportunity to reinforce theoretical concepts by running something other than a traditional practical program. One alternative is to replace wet labs with comparable computer simulations. These virtual experiments involve no harm to animals and require little ongoing expenditure. This study documents second-year physiology students' perceptions of and attitudes to simulations by incorporating several computer simulations into the practical program. Computer simulations met the conceptual and, to some extent, the motivational goals of university practical programs. While students enjoyed both wet labs and computer-simulated exercises, overwhelmingly the wet lab provided the more memorable and stimulating learning experience. Based on this study, students suggested that computer simulations could be effectively used to complement rather than replace practical classes where students gain laboratory skills.

Are most samples of animals systematically biased? Consistent individual trait differences bias samples despite random sampling

Sampling animals from the wild for study is something nearly every biologist has done, but despite our best efforts to obtain random samples of animals, ‘hidden’ trait biases may still exist. For example, consistent behavioral traits can affect trappability/catchability, independent of obvious factors such as size and gender, and these traits are often correlated with other repeatable physiological and/or life history traits. If so, systematic sampling bias may exist for any of these traits. The extent to which this is a problem, of course, depends on the magnitude of bias, which is presently unknown because the underlying trait distributions in populations are usually unknown, or unknowable. Indeed, our present knowledge about sampling bias comes from samples (not complete population censuses), which can possess bias to begin with. I had the unique opportunity to create naturalized populations of fish by seeding each of four small fishless lakes with equal densities of slow-, intermediate-, and fast-growing fish. Using sampling methods that are not size-selective, I observed that fast-growing fish were up to two-times more likely to be sampled than slower-growing fish. This indicates substantial and systematic bias with respect to an important life history trait (growth rate). If correlations between behavioral, physiological and life-history traits are as widespread as the literature suggests, then many animal samples may be systematically biased with respect to these traits (e.g., when collecting animals for laboratory use), and affect our inferences about population structure and abundance. I conclude with a discussion on ways to minimize sampling bias for particular physiological/behavioral/life-history types within animal populations.