The object recognition test is now among the most commonly used behavioral tests for mice. A mouse is presented with two similar objects during the first session, and then one of the two objects is replaced by a new object during a second session. The amount of time taken to explore the new object provides an index of recognition memory. As more groups have used the protocol, the variability of the procedures used in the object recognition test has increased steadily. This protocol provides a necessary standardization of the procedure. This protocol reduces inter-individual variability with the use of a selection criterion based on a minimal time of exploration for both objects during each session. In this protocol, we describe the three most commonly used variants, containing long (3 d), short (1 d) or no habituation phases. Thus, with a short intersession interval (e.g., 6 h), this procedure can be performed in 4, 2 or 1 d, respectively, according to the duration of the habituation phase. This protocol should allow for the comparison of results from different studies, while permitting adaption of the protocol to the constraints of the experimenter.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    Novelty and curiosity as determinants of exploratory behaviour. Brit. J. Psychol. 41, 68–80 (1950).

  2. 2.

    One-trial object recognition by rats. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 37, 279–294 (1985).

  3. 3.

    & A new one-trial test for neurobiological studies of memory in rats. 1: Behavioral data. Behav. Brain Res. 31, 47–59 (1988).

  4. 4.

    et al. Rett syndrome: an eye-tracking study of attention and recognition memory. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 55, 364–371 (2013).

  5. 5.

    & Novel object recognition in the classroom: establishment of an online video resource for use by instructors in courses on animal learning, memory and behavior. J. Behav. Neurosci. Res. 9, 37–43 (2011).

  6. 6.

    , & Hippocampal neurotransmitter efflux during one-trial novel object recognition in rats. Neurosci. Lett. 511, 38–42 (2012).

  7. 7.

    , & Glucocorticoid effects on object recognition memory require training-associated emotional arousal. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 853–858 (2004).

  8. 8.

    & When is the hippocampus involved in recognition memory? J. Neurosci. 31, 10721–10731 (2011).

  9. 9.

    , , , & Continuous enriched environment improves learning and memory in adult NMRI mice through theta burst-related-LTP independent mechanisms but is not efficient in advanced aged animals. Mech. Ageing Dev. 132, 240–248 (2011).

  10. 10.

    , & Scopolamine-induced deficits in a two-trial object recognition task in mice. Neuroreport 8, 1173–1178 (1997).

  11. 11.

    Object recognition in mice: improvement of memory by glucose. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 67, 172–175 (1997).

  12. 12.

    et al. Novel object recognition as a facile behavior test for evaluating drug effects in AβPP/PS1 Alzheimer's disease mouse model. J. Alzheimers Dis. 31, 801–812 (2012).

  13. 13.

    & Novel object exploration in mice: not all objects are created equal. Behav. Processes 89, 232–238 (2012).

  14. 14.

    & The role of environmental familiarization in novel-object preference. Behav. Processes 50, 19–29 (2000).

  15. 15.

    et al. Impaired spatial learning strategies and novel object recognition in mice haploinsufficient for the dual specificity tyrosine-regulated kinase-1A (Dyrk1A). PLoS ONE 3, e2575 (2008).

  16. 16.

    & Sex differences in the behavioral response to spatial and object novelty in adult C57BL/6 mice. Behav. Neurosci. 117, 1283–1291 (2003).

  17. 17.

    et al. Environmental enrichment enhances episodic-like memory in association with a modified neuronal activation profile in adult mice. PLoS ONE 7, e48043 (2012).

  18. 18.

    & Object recognition in rats and mice: a one-trial non-matching-to-sample learning task to study 'recognition memory'. Nat. Protoc. 1, 1306–1311 (2006).

  19. 19.

    et al. Synergistic effect of acetylcholinesterase inhibition (donepezil) and 5-HT4 receptor activation (RS67333) on object recognition in mice. Behav. Brain Res. 230, 304–308 (2012).

  20. 20.

    , , & Performance of different mouse strains in an object recognition task. Behav. Brain Res. 147, 49–54 (2003).

  21. 21.

    , , & Detailed analysis of the behavior of Lister and Wistar rats in anxiety, object recognition and object location tasks. Behav. Brain Res. 159, 247–266 (2005).

  22. 22.

    , , , & Disrupted allocentric but preserved egocentric spatial learning in transgenic mice with impaired glucocorticoid receptor function. Behav. Brain Res. 100, 77–89 (1999).

  23. 23.

    Preference for familiar versus novel stimuli as a function of the familiarity of the environment. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 67, 516 (1969).

  24. 24.

    et al. Object recognition testing: rodent species, strains, housing conditions, and estrous cycle. Behav. Brain Res. 232, 323–334 (2012).

  25. 25.

    , , & Extension of a new two-trial memory task in the rat: influence of environmental context on recognition processes. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 67, 112–120 (1997).

  26. 26.

    , , , & Temporal stability of novelty exploration in mice exposed to different open field tests. Behav. Processes 72, 104–112 (2006).

  27. 27.

    One-trial object recognition in rats and mice: methodological and theoretical issues. Behav. Brain Res. 215, 244–254 (2010).

  28. 28.

    & Influence of circadian phase and test illumination on pre-clinical models of anxiety. Physiol. Behav. 72, 99–106 (2001).

  29. 29.

    & The use of the elevated plus maze as an assay of anxiety-related behavior in rodents. Nat. Protoc. 2, 322–328 (2007).

  30. 30.

    et al. Object familiarization and novel-object preference in rats. Behav. Processes 83, 61–71 (2010).

  31. 31.

    , , & Rats' novel object interaction as a measure of environmental familiarity. Learn. Motiv. 37, 131–148 (2006).

  32. 32.

    & Object recognition analysis in mice using nose-point digital video tracking. J. Neurosci. Methods 168, 422–430 (2008).

  33. 33.

    et al. Behavioural battery testing: evaluation and behavioural outcomes in 8 inbred mouse strains. Physiol. Behav. 99, 301–316 (2010).

Download references


We wish to especially thank G. Bongers (from Noldus Information Technology) for discussions we had on the pros and cons of having experiments automatically analyzed through software and the relevant arguments he put forward. We are grateful to C. Mason for reading the manuscript. A.Q.'s research participation is funded by the French Ministry of Research.

Author information

Author notes

    • Marianne Leger
    •  & Anne Quiedeville

    These authors contributed equally to this work.


  1. Groupe Mémoire et Plasticité comportementale (GMPc), Université de Caen Basse-Normandie, Caen, France.

    • Marianne Leger
    • , Anne Quiedeville
    • , Valentine Bouet
    • , Michel Boulouard
    • , Pascale Schumann-Bard
    •  & Thomas Freret
  2. Centre Universitaire de Ressources Biologiques – Behavioral Research Platform (CURB - BRP), Université de Caen Basse-Normandie, Caen, France.

    • Benoît Haelewyn
    •  & Thomas Freret


  1. Search for Marianne Leger in:

  2. Search for Anne Quiedeville in:

  3. Search for Valentine Bouet in:

  4. Search for Benoît Haelewyn in:

  5. Search for Michel Boulouard in:

  6. Search for Pascale Schumann-Bard in:

  7. Search for Thomas Freret in:


A.Q. and M.L. designed and performed the experiments, analyzed the data and drafted the article. T.F. supervised the study. V.B., B.H., M.B. and P.S.-B. revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors discussed the results and commented on the article at all stages.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Freret.

About this article

Publication history




Further reading


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.