The Open Field Maze (OFM) was initially developed in 1934 as a test to measure emotionality in rodents¹. It has attained the status of being one of the most widely used measures of behavior in animal psychology². It provides an easy and fairly rapid assessment of well-defined behaviors requiring no training to the test subject and little to no specialized training for the human administering the test. These attributes have led to wide-spread use of the open field maze in research extended to other animal species such as calves, pigs, rabbits, primates, honeybees and lobsters³. Part of its popularity arises from the fact that the psychological and physiological concepts underlying the tests are generally straight-forward and well understood. For example, it has been postulated that evolutionary forces have selected for a common response in animals such that most species display anxiety-mediated fear or flight responses to specific stimuli. Rodents for example, show distinct aversions to large, brightly lit, open and unknown environments⁴. We can assume they have been phylogenetically conditioned to see these types of environments as dangerous. All of these features are incorporated in the open field maze and form the basis of its use in behavioral paradigm testing.

An open field maze consists of a wall-enclosed area that is of sufficient height to prevent the subject from escaping. Typical maze shapes are circular or square with an area large enough, based on the size of the subject tested, to elicit a feeling of openness in the center of the maze. A number of variables can be scored in the open field maze with most parameters involving differing types of motor activity². Ambulation is the most common behavior studied but others such as latency or rearing can also be measured. Most often, rodent behavior is analyzed in a bare maze. However, the addition of objects, either one or many to the maze floor, adds the ability to see how the subject interacts with novel additional stimuli². Relevant parameters when objects are presented are typically the number of approaches to an object or in some cases, preference or aversion for one object over another.

Many behavioral tests of anxiety are based on the subject animal’s body activity and locomotion⁵. Interpreting behavioral tests for emotionality while separating non-emotional confounding factors, such as motor activity, has been the subject of intense debate^6,7. As the OFM was originally described, two measures of emotionality can be deduced, locomotor activity and fecal boli deposits or defecation¹. However, these two measures have been shown in some studies to be unrelated supporting the conclusion that emotionality in rodents is multidimensional⁵. Regardless, discrepancies in the literature regarding these measures and emotionality or anxiety in mouse models may be attributed to differences in analysis criteria or differences in testing procedures. Studies have conclusively linked results from OFM analysis with other measures of anxiety when comparing mouse models⁸.