Table 3 Commonly employed behavioural tests of forelimb function
From: Animal models of post-ischemic forced use rehabilitation: methods, considerations, and limitations
| Behavioural test | Purpose | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|
| NSS | Awards an overall score for determining general deficit | +Encompasses a range of assessments, then compiles them into a single measure | -Time intensive; |
| -Does not inform about the nature of specific deficits; | |||
| Cylinder test | Assesses spontaneous forelimb use | +Fast and easy to administer; | -Video analysis can be time intensive |
| +Allows for analysis of a number of functional movements | |||
| Montoya staircase test | Assesses forelimb extension, dexterity, side bias, independent use of forelimbs | +Easy to administer; | -Intensive tests training which requires food deprivation; |
| -May confound results of task- | |||
| +Allows for analysis of both reaching distance and forepaw dexterity | specific rehabilitation if performed often | ||
| Single pellet reaching task | Assesses forelimb dexterity | +Allows for in-depth analysis of the animal’s performance by isolating a single reach attempt | -Intensive tests training which requires food deprivation; |
| -May confound results of task-specific rehabilitation if performed often | |||
| Horizontal ladder test | Assesses forelimb stepping, placing, and coordination during locomotion | +Can assess forelimb and hind limb damage | -Can be complicated by post-surgical immobility |
| Forelimb flexion test | Assesses postural reflex | +Fast and easy to administer | -Measures only postural reflexive position, |
| -Only awards a 0–2 score. | |||
| Forelimb placing test | Assesses forelimb function and placing deficits | +Fast and easy to administer | -Measures only reflexive sensorimotor response; |
| -Can be difficult to distinguish between reflexive response and initiated movement, therefore experimenter must be experienced at determining validity |