Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,835Open textbooks209Open-access articles1,406Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology182Genetics and Genomics170Neuroscience185Cardiovascular Medicine180Immunology142Pharmacology173Molecular Biology161Infectious Diseases150Rare and Inherited Diseases181Clinical Research173Anatomy and Physiology613Drugs and Chemicals621Psychiatry and Psychology185Public Health and Nutrition178Diagnostics and Medical Technology125Respiratory Medicine113Digestive System and Liver91Metabolism and Endocrine Disease177Bones, Joints, Muscles and Skin213Kidney, Urology and Women's Health173Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat55
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Psychiatry and Psychology›Open Field Test

Continue where you left off ()

Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Open Field Test

Psychiatry and Psychology · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-11-04 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed5 referencesApproximately 4 min read

A maze test in which an animal is placed in an open chamber designed to assess anxiety and exploratory behavior by movement patterns.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 3 complete abstracts (744 words), 5 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

A maze test in which an animal is placed in an open chamber designed to assess anxiety and exploratory behavior by movement patterns. In novel object recognition test various objects are added to open field to assess exploration and memory.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Open Field Tests; Test, Open Field; Open Field Maze Test; Novel Object Recognition Test.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Maze Learning

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 331 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Open Field Test” (counts retrieved 2026-10-31). 329 of them (99.4%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2020 onward with 329 records.

Reviews account for 4 records (1.2%) and meta-analyses for 3. Randomized controlled trials number 0 (0.0%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 0 records; 2000-2009: 0 records; 2010-2019: 25 records; 2020 onward: 329 records0through 199902000-2009252010-20193292020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 19990
2000-20090
2010-201925
2020 onward329
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 1.2 percent; Meta-analyses: 0.9 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 0.0 percentReviews1.2% (4)Meta-analyses0.9% (3)Randomized controlled trials0.0% (0)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 331 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews41.2%
Meta-analyses30.9%
Randomized controlled trials00.0%

Method: PubMed query "Open Field Test"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-31.

Reading the evidence in psychiatry and psychology

Research on mental health and behaviour relies on questionnaires, interviews and rating scales rather than physical measurements, so how a condition was defined and measured shapes every result. Many studies are observational or small, placebo responses can be large, and findings in one group or culture may not carry over to another. Nothing on this page is advice about diagnosis or treatment; anyone worried about their mental health should talk to a qualified clinician. Check how outcomes were measured, who took part and how long they were followed.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
Thigmotaxis in a virtual human open field test
Gromer D, Kiser DP, Pauli P
2021Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
30cc by
PMID 33758204 · DOI · PMC7988123
A systematic review and meta-analysis of thigmotactic behaviour in the open field test in rodent models associated with persistent pain
Zhang XY, Diaz-delCastillo M, Kong L, Daniels N, MacIntosh-Smith W, Abdallah A, et al.
2023Meta-analysis
Design not recorded in structured metadata
12cc by
PMID 37682863 · DOI · PMC10490990
Floor vibrations for motivation and feedback in the rat vibration actuating search task
Lawrence-Sidebottom D, Schmidt MA, Harvey DO, Van Dongen HPA, Davis CJ
2021Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
1cc by
PMID 34570800 · DOI · PMC8475976

Thigmotaxis in a virtual human open field test [1]

Research article Gromer D, Kiser DP, Pauli P · · 2021 · cited 30 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Animal models are used to study neurobiological mechanisms in mental disorders.
Closing excerpt
Modulatory effects of anxiety on human open field behavior should be examined further by incorporating possible threats in the virtual scenario and/or by examining participants with higher anxiety levels or anxiety disorder patients.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (237 words)

Animal models are used to study neurobiological mechanisms in mental disorders. Although there has been significant progress in the understanding of neurobiological underpinnings of threat-related behaviors and anxiety, little progress was made with regard to new or improved treatments for mental disorders. A possible reason for this lack of success is the unknown predictive and cross-species translational validity of animal models used in preclinical studies. Re-translational approaches, therefore, seek to establish cross-species translational validity by identifying behavioral operations shared across species. To this end, we implemented a human open field test in virtual reality and measured behavioral indices derived from animal studies in three experiments ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text]). In addition, we investigated the associations between anxious traits and such behaviors. Results indicated a strong similarity in behavior across species, i.e., participants in our study-like rodents in animal studies-preferred to stay in the outer region of the open field, as indexed by multiple behavioral parameters. However, correlational analyses did not clearly indicate that these behaviors were a function of anxious traits of participants. We conclude that the realized virtual open field test is able to elicit thigmotaxis and thus demonstrates cross-species validity of this aspect of the test. Modulatory effects of anxiety on human open field behavior should be examined further by incorporating possible threats in the virtual scenario and/or by examining participants with higher anxiety levels or anxiety disorder patients.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 33758204 · DOI · PMC7988123

A systematic review and meta-analysis of thigmotactic behaviour in the open field test in rodent models associated with persistent pain [2]

Meta-analysis Zhang XY, Diaz-delCastillo M, Kong L, Daniels N, MacIntosh-Smith W, Abdallah A, et al. · · 2023 · cited 12 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Thigmotaxis is an innate predator avoidance behaviour of rodents.
Closing excerpt
Therefore, stimulus-evoked and ethologically relevant behavioural paradigms should be viewed as two separate entities as they are conceptually and methodologically different from each other.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (234 words)

Thigmotaxis is an innate predator avoidance behaviour of rodents. To gain insight into how injury and disease models, and analgesic drug treatments affect thigmotaxis, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that assessed thigmotaxis in the open field test. Systematic searches were conducted of 3 databases in October 2020, March and August 2022. Study design characteristics and experimental data were extracted and analysed using a random-effects meta-analysis. We also assessed the correlation between thigmotaxis and stimulus-evoked limb withdrawal. This review included the meta-analysis of 165 studies We report thigmotaxis was increased in injury and disease models associated with persistent pain and this increase was attenuated by analgesic drug treatments in both rat and mouse experiments. Its usefulness, however, may be limited in certain injury and disease models because our analysis suggested that thigmotaxis may be associated with the locomotor function. We also conducted subgroup analyses and meta-regression, but our findings on sources of heterogeneity are inconclusive because analyses were limited by insufficient available data. It was difficult to assess internal validity because reporting of methodological quality measures was poor, therefore, the studies have an unclear risk of bias. The correlation between time in the centre (type of a thigmotactic metric) and types of stimulus-evoked limb withdrawal was inconsistent. Therefore, stimulus-evoked and ethologically relevant behavioural paradigms should be viewed as two separate entities as they are conceptually and methodologically different from each other.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 37682863 · DOI · PMC10490990

Floor vibrations for motivation and feedback in the rat vibration actuating search task [3]

Research article Lawrence-Sidebottom D, Schmidt MA, Harvey DO, Van Dongen HPA, Davis CJ · · 2021 · cited 1 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Motivating rodents to perform cognitive tasks often relies on the application of aversive stimuli.
Closing excerpt
Thus, the VAST is an effective and practical testbed for studying the mechanisms by which SD causes deficits in feedback-dependent decision making.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (273 words)

Motivating rodents to perform cognitive tasks often relies on the application of aversive stimuli. The Vibration Actuating Search Task (VAST) is a novel open-field task in which gradient floor vibration provides motivation for the rodent to navigate in the direction of diminishing vibration to an unmarked target destination. Using floor vibration as a motivational stimulus may overcome several of the potential confounds associated with stimuli used in other tasks. In a series of three experiments, we determined whether (1) rats exhibit place preference for floor vibration over other aversive stimuli (i.e., water, foot shock, and bright light), (2) exposure to floor vibration is associated with a lower corticosterone response than exposure to these other stimuli, (3) rats successfully acquire the VAST, and (4) VAST performance is sensitive to 6 h of sleep deprivation (SD). Our results showed that rats exhibited place preference for vibration over water, foot shock, and bright light environments, and that corticosterone levels were lower in rats exposed to vibration than those exposed to water. VAST performance also significantly improved over two days of testing for some metrics, and SD impaired VAST performance. Overall, we conclude that (1) rats exhibit place preference for vibration over other stimuli commonly used to motivate task performance, (2) the vibrations employed by the VAST produce lower concentrations of circulating corticosterone than forced swimming, (3) rats can learn to use gradient floor vibration as a mode of performance feedback within two days of testing, and (4) VAST performance is substantially impaired by SD. Thus, the VAST is an effective and practical testbed for studying the mechanisms by which SD causes deficits in feedback-dependent decision making.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 34570800 · DOI · PMC8475976

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article The Open Field Test as a Tool for Behaviour Analysis in Pigs: Recommendations for Set-Up Standardization - A Systematic Review [4]
    Schulz M, Zieglowski L, Kopaczka M, Tolba RH · Eur Surg Res · 2023 · cited 13 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Contribution of distinctive outcome measures to the assessment of anxiety in the open field: A meta-analysis of factors mediating open-field test variability in rodent models of anxiety [5]
    Çevik ÖS, Yıldırım DD, Uzun C, Horata E · Behav Brain Res · 2025 · cited 9 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Gromer D, Kiser DP, Pauli P. Thigmotaxis in a virtual human open field test. . 2021. PMID 33758204 · DOI · PMC7988123
  2. Zhang XY, Diaz-delCastillo M, Kong L, Daniels N, MacIntosh-Smith W, Abdallah A, et al.. A systematic review and meta-analysis of thigmotactic behaviour in the open field test in rodent models associated with persistent pain. . 2023. PMID 37682863 · DOI · PMC10490990
  3. Lawrence-Sidebottom D, Schmidt MA, Harvey DO, Van Dongen HPA, Davis CJ. Floor vibrations for motivation and feedback in the rat vibration actuating search task. . 2021. PMID 34570800 · DOI · PMC8475976
  4. Schulz M, Zieglowski L, Kopaczka M, Tolba RH. The Open Field Test as a Tool for Behaviour Analysis in Pigs: Recommendations for Set-Up Standardization - A Systematic Review. Eur Surg Res. 2023. PMID 35732140 · DOI · PMC9808745
  5. Çevik ÖS, Yıldırım DD, Uzun C, Horata E. Contribution of distinctive outcome measures to the assessment of anxiety in the open field: A meta-analysis of factors mediating open-field test variability in rodent models of anxiety. Behav Brain Res. 2025. PMID 40311939 · DOI

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-11-04; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-11-04.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • AssociationPsychiatry and Psychology
  • CuesPsychiatry and Psychology
  • LearningPsychiatry and Psychology
  • MemoryPsychiatry and Psychology
  • Problem SolvingPsychiatry and Psychology
  • PunishmentPsychiatry and Psychology

All 110 articles in Psychiatry and Psychology →

At a glance

331
PubMed records on this heading
99%
published since 2020
4
review articles
0
randomized trials
5
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-10-31; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • AssociationPsychiatry and Psychology
  • CuesPsychiatry and Psychology
  • LearningPsychiatry and Psychology
  • MemoryPsychiatry and Psychology
  • Problem SolvingPsychiatry and Psychology

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Rights and removal requests · Legal · Support