-
8/2/2019 Observation and Measurement of Behavior of Mus Musculus
1/17
Observation and Measurement of Behavior ofMus musculus1
Marie Arenbi Carillanes
Eunice Marie Jaen
Arriane Mae Isla
Ivy Madrid
Paulo Miguel Kim
1A scientific paper submitted in partial fulfillment to the requirements in Animal Behavior Laboratory under Mr.
Pablo Ocampo, 1st
sem, 2011-2012.
-
8/2/2019 Observation and Measurement of Behavior of Mus Musculus
2/17
INTRODUCTION
In a purely biological perspective,behavior is defined as all observable muscular and
secretory responses to changes in an animals internal or external environment (Grier, 1984).
However, such a definition is far too broad. Behavior can be encompassed by physiology,psychology and sociology. But it can also be tackled in the field of zoology. In its simplest form,
one can consider behavior as the collection of observable and recognizable actions of animals.
Any study of animal behavior always starts at the same line. By far it is the most important
yet also one of the most overlooked. A thorough knowledge of the target specimen being studied
is a critical necessity for any behavioral studies. It ultimately will lead to a proper citation and
formulation of a special behavioral set unique to a species, a list known as an ethogram.
An ethogram is a repertoire composed of sequences of behavioral patterns. Each pattern in
turn is composed ofethons, the smallest unit in the study used to denote the tiniest action of
behavior which makes up the whole (Ibid.).
In dissecting the total behavior displayed by an animal, one can derive the ethons and
attribute the correlations of each in forming possible conclusions to their existence.
Some behavior of animals are innate in nature, a necessity for survival (Breland, 1966). But
because behavior is variable, it cannot be expected that the different animals will display the
same behavior. Thus, a large amount of time is used just to document the list of behavior of a
single animal and a greater amount of patience is employed to ensure that the list of behavior is
as close to the animals.
However, the number of acts that can be observed in an animals repertoire is dependent in
three factors. First, one must consider the number of acts that an animal possesses. Second, the
rarity of a certain act within a bout must also be considered, whether or not observers will be
able to ascertain such behavior. Lastly, one must consider the duration of observation. The
longer one observes the higher probability of seeing the rarer acts.
Behavior can be grouped accordingly in a logical, natural categories based on their function.
They can also be illustrated according to the measurement of the continuous aspects of an
animals appearance (i.e. posture, angle or position on limbs) (Grier, 1984).
Statistics provide studies in behavior the necessary tools in order to understand therelationship of the observations made. Descriptive statistics aid in describing the characteristics
of a set of numbers. Inferential statistics on the other hand, is used when one infers, with the aid
of assumptions and statistical tests like analysis of variance, how groups of data relates to each
other and if whether there is an inherent order or variability. Between the two, inferential
statistics is more highly used, the former often regarded as existing under the auspices of random
-
8/2/2019 Observation and Measurement of Behavior of Mus Musculus
3/17
change rather than by any underlying effect of interest.
Often times, behavior is taken is as part of a multiple whole rather than as a single entity.
Among the common categories of analyzing multiple behavior data are the comparison of the
frequency of behavior among different rest subjects, the analysis of the interaction of behaviorbetween two or more individuals and the analysis of the sequence of behavior through time.
Statistical analysis is further subdivided into two types: parametric analysis, where the
assumption that a population is normally distributed and variance is assumes homogenous and
non parametric, where it is not necessary for a population to be normally distributed or for
variance to be homogenous(Changing Minds, 2011).
The common house mouse (Mus musculus) is a common test animal in the study of behavior.
It exhibits a variety of behavior and is easy to monitor as well as manipulate. It is an efficient
subject particularly for observing behavioral patterns and for detecting ethons within series ofcomplex acts. Grooming behavior is among the most observed acts among mice and an ideal
study for sequential behavior.
The objectives of the experiment is to study the grooming behavior of animals, specifically
Mus musculus, Furthermore, the experiment will ascertain the grooming behavior ofMus
musculus under stress and to determine the significance of the behavioral pattern and its subunit
suingthe following measures: duration, interval, latency and sequence. In the study, the
principles of observation, description and quantification of behavior will be performed and
evaluated.
This study was conducted at A-125, Institute of Biological Sciences, UPLB on August 2011.
-
8/2/2019 Observation and Measurement of Behavior of Mus Musculus
4/17
METHODOLOGY
In ascertaining the grooming behavior of mice, an observation chamber set up was assembled.
Three aquarium tanks were setup. Fluorescent light was wrapped in red plastic to mask the light.
The sides of the aquarium were covered to delimit the red light within. Three mice (an individual,
a male and a female) were produced. The individual test mouse was coated in flour inside aplastic bag and allowed to acclimatize in the observation chamber for 5 minutes. The grooming
behavior of the mouse was complied and labeled into specific codes for later use. Observation
was made for 15 minutes.
The test mouse was redusted and reintroduced to the chamber. The procedure was repeated for
another 20 minutes. The grooming acts were noted using the formulated codes and the actual
time until the end of grooming was recorder in seconds. All data and observations was tabulated
(Table 2).
The male and female mice were tested separately. Each test mice was sprayed with copious
amount of water and placed in the chamber. Using the previously formulated codes, all grooming
acts displayed were noted in a sequence for 30 minutes at a one minute interval. All data and
observations were tabulated (Table 3).
The mean of the duration, interval and frequency of the first experiments were computed and
tabulated. Similarly, the mean frequencies of the male and female mice for the second
experiment were also computed.
All computed measures were pooled. The Kruskall-Wallis Single Factor ANOVA was
applied. Results were analyzed and predominant sequences were established from the data.
-
8/2/2019 Observation and Measurement of Behavior of Mus Musculus
5/17
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The data was subdivided into two main experiments. An initial set up was established to
observe grooming subunits as well as to establish a sequence code for later use (Table 1). The
first experiment involved the use of an individual mouse placed into a condition to elicit its
grooming behavior, the condition here is the use of flour as a stimulus. Two sets were made, thefirst to ascertain the categories and the subunits of its behavior based from observation. The
second set was implemented to establish the sequence of the behavior being displaced under 15
minutes and form a conclusion based on the resulting frequency, interval and duration of the
behavior (Table 4., Table 5., Table 6.)
The second experiment involved two specimens, a male and female mouse. Similarly to the
previous, the experiments involved subjecting the specimens into specific conditions which
would elicit their grooming behavior. However, unlike them former, water was used instead to
ascertain the resulting behavior. The previously established categories and subunits were also
applied in the experiment as the same procedures. However, only the frequencies of thecategories were taken. (Table 7., Table 8. )
The results of the first experiment showed that, of the four categories of grooming (Head,
Body,Coxal and Leg), the longest duration as well as interval for the two specimens was for
body grooming (8.36 and 8.2 seconds respectively) for each bout.
On the other hand, the most frequency grooming category exhibited was seen in leg grooming,
with a mean total of 26.5.
The results of the second experiment, on the other hand, showed that for males, there was
higher average frequency of leg grooming in contrast to the other categories as well as those of
the female (34.25).
The female specimens, however, exhibited a higher average frequency of head grooming
against the other categories (27.25).
In order to establish the significance of the data set, a non-parametric statistical tool was
employed. Instead of using single factor ANOVA, Kruskall-Wallis single factor ANOVA was
used. The Kruskall-Wallis one-way analysis of variance uses ranks of the measurements instead
of the actual measurements of variabilities of the populations being compared. It is an extremely
useful test on deciding whether kindependent from different populations. Furthermore, the testassumes that the variable under study has an underlying continuous distribution (Table 9).
Using the Kruskall-Wallis single factor ANOVA, the following results were obtained:
1. With H values of 3.17, 3.17 and 4.17 respectively, it was concluded that there was nostatistical significant differences among the durations, intervals and frequencies of the
four grooming behaviors in the two mice specimens.
-
8/2/2019 Observation and Measurement of Behavior of Mus Musculus
6/17
2. With H value of 5.41, it was ascertained that there was no significant, statisticaldifferences between the frequencies of the four grooming habits in the four male mice
specimens.
3. With a H value of 7.18, it was determined that there was no significant statisticaldifferences between the frequencies of the four grooming habits in the four female mice
specimens.
From the results of the experiments, it can be established that there is not significant
differences in the different grooming habits of the mice. As such, although some grooming
categories and subunits were exhibited more within a single bout than others, there is no
statistical evidence that there is a constant, established pattern being followed.
However, from the results of the experiment, it was found that in terms of frequency, leg
grooming and its associated subunits was potentially higher than those of the other categories.
But in terms of both duration and interval, body grooming was exhibited longer and within
greater intervals. It will also be noted that head grooming closely followed both of the previous,acting as an intermediate in terms of frequency, duration and interval.
While it cannot be sufficiently established from the results, it may postulated that the after
mentioned three categories of grooming were more exhibited in a given bout. Coxal grooming
proved to be the least exhibited and in fact has the lowest values in terms of the three
parameters.
Anxiety and stress often plays a major part in grooming amongst many mammals, especially
among mice. Depending on the level of stress, grooming may be erratic, passive or robust
(Kyzar et al., 2011; Animal Behavior Society, 2011).
In mice, the more anxiety experienced, the more vigorous grooming is. With the setup of the
experiment, stress is reduced by a combination of acclimatization and the red light that prevents
the specimens from detecting the observers.
However, stress was added in order to elicit grooming responses, namely subjection to flour
and water, as seen in the first and second experiment respectively. Thus, it was expected that the
mice were to exhibit vigorous grooming behavior (Kyzar et al., 2011).
In the flour stimulus experiment, although leg grooming was more frequently exhibited at about, body grooming was performed at a longer duration as well as in greater interval. As was
previously mentioned, head grooming was considered at an intermediate position between the
two. Coxal grooming was not emphasized nor displayed recurrently.
In the water stimulus experiment, while the duration and interval were not noted, the
frequency of the male and female mouse were ascertained. The male mouse showed an higher
-
8/2/2019 Observation and Measurement of Behavior of Mus Musculus
7/17
average frequency of leg grooming (34.25), followed by head grooming (27.25) whereas the
female showed a higher average frequency of head grooming (27.25), followed by leg grooming
(24.5). Coxal grooming was low in terms of frequency, for both male and female mice.
Of the four grooming categories, the head and body grooming were more emphasized by
mice due to the inherent consequences associated with keeping the two regions free fromirritants. The head region involves many of the senses relied upon by mice in order to cope with
its environment. Likewise, the body is necessary in order to maintain coordination among mice,
an important trait for survival.
On another note, the leg region, though only frequent in duration in the experiment, also is
an important area which must be maintained by mice, being its essential tool for
locomotion.
If it is thus analyzed, the head region houses the vital sense organs like the eyes, ears and
nose. These sense organs are used by mice in order to survey their environment for any subtle
changes that may signal for security as well as for detecting food. Irritants that impede the
functions of these senses must be removed to maintain optimum use of these senses. On the
other hand, once the brain processes the stimuli, it must act depending on the significance of the
message, whether to maintain its position or to escape. Likewise, the body as well as the legs
must be groomed to avoid critical mistakes in its behavioral responses. Irritants that block the
optimum use of the body and limbs could prove a fatal mistake for many a species.
However, in mice, it was observed that the coxal grooming was the least emphasized
grooming category and the least observed in a particular bout. It may be postulated that coxal
region, a region whose usual function is to maintain gait during locomotion, is least displayed
because the tail poses no immediate role in behavioral mechanisms like escape and detection.
Thus, even in a passive environment where the levels of threat are low, the mice specimens
perform coxal grooming less frequently as compared to grooming the other regions.
Lastly, it must be noted that the tail, unlike most of the other body regions, has relatively
sparse fur and thus least likely to be affected by irritants like dirt and parasites.
There is a distinguishable sequence which maybe observed within the grooming acts. This
sequence is best seen in the second experiment where the male and female mice were involved.
As can be seen in Table. 2 and 3, there is a complex number of apparent sequences which maybe observed. However, segments of the major sequence of grooming behavior can still be noted.
It will be noted that majority, if not all, of the grooming acts per one minute were initiated by
head grooming. Although no true pattern could properly be established, the head grooming
subunits began with licking or scratching different to successive parts of the head.
-
8/2/2019 Observation and Measurement of Behavior of Mus Musculus
8/17
After head grooming, body or leg grooming followed. However, between the two, leg
grooming proceeded first before body grooming, though instances arose where in the latter
appeared in the absence of the former. The grooming step usually proceeded from the leg to the
sides of the body, gradually progressing ventrally until the anal-genital regions was reaches.
Finally, observations yielded that a singular pause was usually performed before proceeding
to coxal grooming.
In general, a grooming sequence could be established: Head-Leg-Body-Coxal.
However, it will be noted that grooming of the coxal region was infrequent and thus, there
were only few instances where in the entire sequence were actually observed.
Other than that, there were frequent recurrent fragments of this major detectable sequence.
Each fragment follows the established sequence closely and with little to no deviation.
The after mentioned grooming sequence that was established by the experiment is common to
all rodents. All rodents engage in a number of self-grooming activities in order to keep the fur
and the skin clean. The form in which these sequences as displayed may differ from one rodent
to another but the basic pattern is retained. Other times, the organization varies from veryloosely to very stylized though always in an identical fashion. This pattern is an extensive
grooming activity known as cephalocaudal grooming. This grooming sequence, begins from the
face (head region) and gradually covers up to the flanks (the leg and body region) and finally to
tail (coxal region). Grooming, however, may be interrupted from between points in the
sequence, most notably the abrupt pause before tail grooming (Rat Behavior, 2008; 2011).
-
8/2/2019 Observation and Measurement of Behavior of Mus Musculus
9/17
SUMMARY AND COCNLUSION
The observation and measurement of behavior of the albino variant house mouse (Mus
musculus) has been determined.
The compilations of a behavioral catalogue for the specimens as well as the dissection of the
individual bouts have yielded four major grooming categories (Head, Leg, Body and Coxal),
each of which were further subdivided into subunits.
Results of the initial experiment on individual test mice showed that leg grooming , with a
mean frequency of 34.25, showed the highest frequency displayed whereas the longest duration
and the greatest interval was shown in body grooming (8.36 and 8.2 seconds respectively).
Results of the second experiment showed that the highest average frequency of grooming
behavior in males was under leg grooming (34.25) whereas the highest average frequanecy for
female mice was under head grooming (27.25).
Using Kruskall-Wallis Single Factor ANOVA, it was determined that there were no
significant statistical differences between the duration, interval and frequency of the four
grooming acts of the individual mouse in the flour test. Similarly, there were no significant
statistical differences between the frequency of the four grooming behavior of both the male and
female mice in the water test.
Thus, there is no direct correlation that a grooming act on a certain body part is exhibited
more than the others.
Lastly, a detectable sequence was established from the resultant data. A pattern of Head-
Leg-Body-Coxal grooming was determined to persist in any series of behavior displayed by the
test mice, a main sequence which is followed whether whole or in fragments. Furthermore, the
cephalocaudal grooming displayed was loosely organized, the intervals often interrupted, thus
giving rise to the fragments of the main sequence.
The measurement of behavior is mediated by the careful use of observation as well as
statistical analysis in order to ascertain significance. In the study of ethograms, the initial step is
to determine the smallest identifiable units of behavior by dissecting the observable behavior of
an animal. Behavioral patterns can be determined after following the complex sequences formed
from these units.
In the case of the test mice, the smallest units that make up the entire behavioral pattern are
ultimately responsible for the overall makeup of the sequence. By determining parameters such
as duration, interval, latency and frequency, it is possible to determine a possible base sequence
of behavior.
-
8/2/2019 Observation and Measurement of Behavior of Mus Musculus
10/17
REFERENCES
Animal Behavior Society.Ethogram of Mice. . Accessed August 2011.
Breland, K. and M. 1966.Animal behavior. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Changing Minds. Parametric vs. non-parametric tests.
. Accessed August 2011.
Grier, J. W. 1984.Biology of animal behavior. St. Loius, Mo.: Times Mirror/Mosby
College Publishing.
Kyzar, E., Gaikwad, S., Roth, A., Green, J., Pham, M., Stewart, A., Loang, Y., Kobla, V.
and Kallueff, A. 2011. Towards high-throughput phenotyping of complex patterned behaviors in
rodents: Focus on mouse self-grooming. New Orleans: Elsevier B.V.
Rat Behavior. 2008.Rat Behavior and Biology. .
Acessed September 2011.
---------------2011.Glossary of rat behavior terms. .
Acessed September 2011.
Siegel, S. 1956.Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. USA: McGraw-Hill
Book Co.
http://www.animalbehavior.org/ABSEducation/laboratory-exercises-in-animal-behavior/laboratory-exercises-in-animal-behavior-ethogramshttp://www.animalbehavior.org/ABSEducation/laboratory-exercises-in-animal-behavior/laboratory-exercises-in-animal-behavior-ethogramshttp://www.animalbehavior.org/ABSEducation/laboratory-exercises-in-animal-behavior/laboratory-exercises-in-animal-behavior-ethogramshttp://www.animalbehavior.org/ABSEducation/laboratory-exercises-in-animal-behavior/laboratory-exercises-in-animal-behavior-ethogramshttp://changingminds.org/explanations/research/analysis/parametric_non-parametric.htmhttp://changingminds.org/explanations/research/analysis/parametric_non-parametric.htmhttp://changingminds.org/explanations/research/analysis/parametric_non-parametric.htmhttp://www.ratbehavior.org/norway_rat_ethogram.htmhttp://www.ratbehavior.org/norway_rat_ethogram.htmhttp://www.ratbehavior.org/norway_rat_ethogram.htmhttp://www.ratbehavior.org/Glossary.htmhttp://www.ratbehavior.org/Glossary.htmhttp://www.ratbehavior.org/Glossary.htmhttp://www.ratbehavior.org/norway_rat_ethogram.htmhttp://changingminds.org/explanations/research/analysis/parametric_non-parametric.htmhttp://www.animalbehavior.org/ABSEducation/laboratory-exercises-in-animal-behavior/laboratory-exercises-in-animal-behavior-ethogramshttp://www.animalbehavior.org/ABSEducation/laboratory-exercises-in-animal-behavior/laboratory-exercises-in-animal-behavior-ethograms -
8/2/2019 Observation and Measurement of Behavior of Mus Musculus
11/17
APPENDIX
Table 1. Catalog listing of grooming behavior.
Grooming Act Subunits Codes
Leg
Lick arm Scratch arm LLA LSA
Lick leg Scratch leg LLL LSL
Lick feet Scratch feet LLF LSF
Head
Lick ear Scratch ear HLE HSE
Lick nose Scratch nose HLN HSN
Lick cheek Scratch cheek HLC HSC
Lick head Scratch head HLH HSH
Body
Lick back Scratch back BLB BSBLick stomach Scratch stomach BLS BSS
Lick testicle Scratch testicle BLT BST
Coxal
Lick base tail Scratch base tail CLB CSB
Lick middle tail Scratch middle tail CLM CSM
Lick tip of tail Scratch tip of tail CLT CST
-
8/2/2019 Observation and Measurement of Behavior of Mus Musculus
12/17
Table 2. The sequence of grooming acts in terms of duration and interval.
Succession of Grooming Acts Gooming Act (coded) Beginning time (s) End time (s) Duration (s)
1 HLH 5:05 5:05 15
2 LLF 5:06 5:06 2
3 HLH 5:06 5:06 3
4 HLH 5:06 5:06 2
5 HSN 5:06 5:07 3
6 LSF 5:08 5:08 2
7 LSF 5:08 5:08 2
8 BLS 5:08 5:09 3
9 HLH 5:09 5:09 6
10 LLF 5:09 5:09 5
11 HLH 5:09 5:09 3
12 HLH 5:09 5:10 2
13 LLF 5:10 5:10 3
14 LLF 5:10 5:10 4
15 BLB 5:10 5:10 7
16 LSF 5:10 5:10 3
17 HLH 5:10 5:10 3
18 BLT 5:10 5:10 5
19 LLF 5:11 5:11 10
20 BLS 5:11 5:11 8
21 BLS 5:11 5:12 4
22 BLB 5:12 5:12 16
23 LLF 5:12 5:12 11
24 HLN 5:13 5:13 3
25 LLF 5:13 5:13 7
26 LSF 5:13 5:13 4
27 LLF 5:13 5:14 10
28 HLC 5:14 5:14 3
29 BLB 5:14 5:15 9
30 HSN 5:16 5:16 15
31 BLS 5:16 5:16 14
32 LLF 5:16 5:16 5
-
8/2/2019 Observation and Measurement of Behavior of Mus Musculus
13/17
33 HLH 5:16 5:16 2
34 BLS 5:16 5:17 12
35 BLT 5:17 5:17 7
36 HLH 5:17 5:17 4
37 BLT 5:17 5:17 5
38 HLH 5:17 5:18 6
39 BLB 5:18 5:18 13
40 BSB 5:18 5:18 12
41 LLF 5:18 5:18 7
42 LSF 5:19 5:19 5
43 BLS 5:19 5:19 9
44 HSN 5:19 5:19 3
45 LLF 5:19 5:20 9
46 HSE 5:20 5:20 3
47 HSE 5:20 5:20 4
48 HSN 5:20 5:20 2
49 HSN 5:20 5:20 3
50 HSN 5:20 5:21 2
51 BLS 5:21 5:21 8
52 HLH 5:21 5:22 4
53 HLH 5:22 5:22 5
54 HSC 5:22 5:22 2
55 BLS 5:22 5:23 14
56 LLF 5:23 5:23 8
57 HLN 5:23 5:23 558 LLF 5:24 5:25 6
59 LLF 5:25 5:25 12
-
8/2/2019 Observation and Measurement of Behavior of Mus Musculus
14/17
Table 3. The sequence of grooming acts of male and female mice.
Animal 1 (male) Animal 2 (Female)
No. Grooming Acts (Coded)
No. Grooming Act (Coded)
1HSM, HLN, HLH, HSC, HSE,
LSF,LLF 1 HSN
2 HSC 2 HSN, HSE, LSF, BSB
3 HSN, LLF 3 HSE, HSN, HSC, LSF, LSF, BSB, BLB
4 HLH, LLF, BLS 4 HSE, HSC, HSE, LLF, LLF, BSB
5 HLH,HSN, HLC, LLF, BLS 5 HSF,BLS, BLB,CLB
6 HSB, LLF, BLB 6 -
7 HSE, LLF, LLH, BLB 7 -
8 HSE, HSN, HSC, LLF, BLB,BLT 8 HSF, LSF
9 HLH, HSN, BLB, 9 -
10 HSN, LLF, BLS 10 HSN
11 HSN, HLH 11 -
12 HLH, HSE, BLS, BLB 12 -
13 HLH, LSF, BLB, CEB 13 HSF
14 HSN, HLH, BLB 14 -
15 HLH, HSE, BLB 15 -16 HLH, HSE, BLB 16 HSE, HSN, HSC, HLE, LSF,LLF
17 HSN, LLF, BSB, CLB 17
HLN, HLE, HSE, HSE, HSN, LLF, BLG, BLS,
BLB
18 HSC, HSN, HLOH, LLF, BLS, BLB 18 HLH, HLN, BLB, BLG, BLS
19 HLH, BLT, BLB 19 HLE, HLC, HLH, HLN, LLF, BLB, BSB, CLB
20 HSE, HSN,LLH, BLB, CLB 20 HSE, HSN, LLH, LLF, BLB, BSB, BLG, BLB
21 HSE, HLN, HLH, HSE, HSC 21 HLH, HLN, HSE, HSC, BLS, BLG, BLB
22 HSE, HSN, HSC, BLB, BLS 22 HLH, BSB
23 BSB, BSS, BLT 23 -
24 - 24 -25 - 25 -
26 HLN 26 -
27 HSC, HLN, HSE, BLB, BLT 27 HSN, HSE, HSC, LLF, BLS, CLB
28 BLT 28 HSN, HSE, HSC, LLH, BLS
29 HLH, BLT, BLB 29 HSE, HSC, BLS, BLG, CLB
30 HLH, LLF, BSS, BLB, BLT, CLB 30 LLH
-
8/2/2019 Observation and Measurement of Behavior of Mus Musculus
15/17
Table 4. Summary of pooled data of the average duration of grooming in individual mice.
Mouse no. HG LG CG BG
1 4.29 6.05 0 9.13
2 8.15 5.76 6.25 7.59
mean 6.22 5.905 3.125 8.36
sd 2.729432175 0.205060967 4.419417382 1.088944443
Table 5. Summary of pooled data of the average intervalof grooming in individual mice.
Mouse no. HG LG CG BG
1 7.5 8.77 0 9.33
2 7.68 5.8 6.45 7.07
mean 7.59 7.285 3.225 8.2
sd 0.127279221 2.10010714 4.560838739 1.598061325
Table 6. Summary of pooled data of the average frequency of grooming in individual mice.
Mouse no. HG LG CG BG
1 24 19 0 16
2 26 34 4 29
mean 25 26.5 2 22.5
sd 1.414213562 10.60660172 2.828427125 9.192388155
Table 7. Summary of pooled data of the average frequency of grooming in male mice.
Mouse no. HG LG CG BG
1 1 19 0 102 57 83 13 31
3 50 19 4 33
4 1 19 0 10
mean 27.25 35 4.25 21
sd 30.44530615 32 6.130524719 12.72792206
-
8/2/2019 Observation and Measurement of Behavior of Mus Musculus
16/17
Table 8. Summary of pooled data of the average frequency of grooming in female mice.
Mouse no. HG LG CG BG
1 13 16 5 10
2 40 52 6 27
3 43 14 4 26
4 13 16 5 0
mean 27.25 24.5 5 15.75
sd 16.5 18.35755975 0.816496581 13.07351011
Table 9. Summary of results of Kruskall-Wallis computations.
Table no. k value N value Tabulated value H value Decision Conclusion
4 4 8 6.167 3.17 Fail to reject Ho No significant differences
5 4 8 6.167 3.17 Fail to reject Ho No significant differences
6 4 8 6.167 4.167 Fail to reject Ho No significant differences
7 4 16 7.235 5.41 Fail to reject Ho No significant differences
8 4 16 7.235 7.18 Fail to reject Ho No significant differences
-
8/2/2019 Observation and Measurement of Behavior of Mus Musculus
17/17