Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

The Tailtag: A multi-mouse tracking system to measure social dynamics in complex environments

Abstract

Despite recent advances, tracking individual movements safely and reliably over extended periods, particularly within complex social groups, remains a challenge. Traditional methods like color coding, tagging, and RFID tracking, while effective, have notable practical limitations. State-of-the-art neural network-based trackers often struggle to maintain individual identities in large groups for more than a few seconds. Fiducial tags such as ArUco codes present a potential solution to enable accurate tracking and identity management. However, their application to large groups of socially interacting mice in complex, enriched environments remain an open challenge. Here, we present the Tailtag system, a novel approach designed to address this challenge. The Tailtag is a non-invasive, safe, and ergonomic tail ring embedded with an ArUco marker allowing to track individual mice in colonies of up to 20 individuals in complex environments for at least seven days without performance degradation or behavioral alteration. We provide a comprehensive parameter optimization guide and practical recommendations for marker selection, for reproducibility across diverse experimental setups. Using data collected from Tailtag-equipped mice, we revealed the formation and evolution of social groups within the colony. Our analysis identified social hub regions within the vivarium where social contacts occur at different frequencies throughout one week of recordings. We quantified interactions and avoidance patterns between specific pairs of mice within the most active social hubs. Overall, our findings indicate that while the zone preferences and peer associations among the mice change over time, certain groups and pairwise interactions consistently form within the social colony.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: The Tailtag System.
Fig. 2: Results of the Reliability Study.
Fig. 3: Effects of the tailtag on mouse behavior.
Fig. 4: Temporal evolution of mouse-area interactions.
Fig. 5: Interactions at the top feeder throughout the week.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Video footage will be made available upon reasonable request.

References

  1. de Chaumont F, Ey E, Torquet N, Lagache T, Dallongeville S, Imbert A, et al. Real-time analysis of the behaviour of groups of mice via a depth-sensing camera and machine learning. Nat Biomed Eng. 2019;3:930–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Weissbrod A, Shapiro A, Vasserman G, Edry L, Dayan M, Yitzhaky A, et al. Automated long-term tracking and social behavioural phenotyping of animal colonies within a semi-natural environment. Nat Commun. 2013;4:2018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Roughan JV, Sevenoaks T. Welfare and scientific considerations of tattooing and ear tagging for mouse identification. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2019;58:142–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Stockman H. Communication by means of reflected power. Proc IRE. 1948;10:1196–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. König B, Lindholm AK, Lopes PC, Dobay A, Steinert S, Buschmann FJU. A system for automatic recording of social behavior in a free-living wild house mouse population. Anim Biotelemetry. 2015;3:39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bennett JP, Akram W. A review of RFID technology and its applications in animal tracking. Multi-animal pose estimation, identification and tracking with DeepLabCut, Multi-animal pose estimation, identification and tracking with DeepLabCut. Vet J. 2013;198:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lauer J, Zhou M, Ye S, Menegas W, Schneider S, Nath T. et al. Multi-animal pose estimation, identification and tracking with DeepLabCut. Nat Methods. 2022;19:496–504.

  8. Pereira TD, Aldarondo DE, Willmore L, Kislin M, Wang SSH, Murthy M, et al. Fast animal pose estimation using deep neural networks. Nat Methods. 2019;16:117–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Pérez-Escudero A, Vicente-Page J, Hinz RC, Arganda S, de Polavieja GG. idTracker: tracking individuals in a group by automatic identification of unmarked animals. Nat Methods. 2014;11:743–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mersch DP, Crespi A, Keller L. Tracking individuals shows spatial fidelity is a key regulator of ant social organization. Science. 2013;340:1090–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Alarcón-Nieto G, et al. An automated barcode tracking system for behavioural studies in birds. Methods Ecol Evol. 2018;9:1536–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Eagan BH, Eagan B, Protopopova A. Behaviour real-time spatial tracking identification (BeRSTID) used for cat behaviour monitoring in an animal shelter. Sci Rep. 2022;12:17585.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Smith TJ, Smith TR, Faruk F, Bendea M, Kumara ST, Capadona JR, et al. Real-time assessment of rodent engagement using ArUco markers: a scalable and accessible approach for scoring behavior in a nose-poking Go/No-Go task. eNeuro 2024;11. https://doi.org/10.1523/eneuro.0500-23.2024.

  14. Garrido-Jurado S, Muñoz-Salinas R, Madrid-Cuevas FJ, Marín-Jiménez MJ. Automatic generation and detection of highly reliable fiducial markers under occlusion. Pattern Recognit. 2014;47:2280–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ge Z, Liu S, Wang F, Li Z, Sun J. YOLOX: Exceeding YOLO Series in 2021. arXiv. 2021.

  16. Maji D, Nagori S, Mathew M, Poddar D. YOLO-Pose: enhancing YOLO for multi person pose estimation using object keypoint similarity loss. arXiv (2022).

  17. Chen K, Wang J, Pang J, Cao Y, Xiong Y, Li X. et al. MMDetection: Open mmlab detection toolbox and benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.07155 (2019).

  18. Leal-Taixé L, Milan A, Reid I, Roth S, Schindler K. Motchallenge 2015: Towards a benchmark for multi-target tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.01942 (2015).

  19. Duerler P, Vollenweider FX, Preller KH. A neurobiological perspective on social influence: Serotonin and social adaptation. J Neurochem. 2022;162:60–79.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Cid-Jofré V, Bahamondes T, Zúñiga Correa A, Ahumada Arias I, Reyes-Parada M, Renard GM. Psychostimulants and social behaviors. Front Pharmacol. 2024;15:1364630.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Feldman R. Social behavior as a transdiagnostic marker of resilience. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2021;17:153–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee W, Milewski TM, Dwortz MF, Young RL, Gaudet AD, Fonken LK, et al. Distinct immune and transcriptomic profiles in dominant versus subordinate males in mouse social hierarchies. Brain, Behav Immun. 2022;103:130–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Agranyoni O, Meninger-Mordechay S, Uzan A, Ziv O, Salmon-Divon M, Rodin D, et al. Gut microbiota determines the social behavior of mice and induces metabolic and inflammatory changes in their adipose tissue. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes. 2021;7:28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Choi TY, Jeon H, Jeong S, Kim EJ, Kim J, Jeong YH, et al. Distinct prefrontal projection activity and transcriptional state conversely orchestrate social competition and hierarchy. Neuron. 2024;112:611–627.e618.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kupferberg A, Bicks L, Hasler G. Social functioning in major depressive disorder. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016;69:313–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Saris IMJ, Aghajani M, van der Werff SJA, van der Wee NJA, Penninx B. Social functioning in patients with depressive and anxiety disorders. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2017;136:352–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Green MF, Horan WP, Lee J. Social cognition in schizophrenia. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2015;16:620–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Addington J, Penn D, Woods SW, Addington D, Perkins DO. Social functioning in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis. Schizophr Res. 2008;99:119–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Dickerson BC. Dysfunction of social cognition and behavior. Continuum. 2015;3:660–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lord C, Elsabbagh M, Baird G, Veenstra-Vanderweele J. Autism spectrum disorder. Lancet. 2018;392:508–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Fu, D, Chen, D, Bao, J, Yang, H, Yuan, L, Zhang, L, et al. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 14750-9.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the animal facility at the CERVO Brain Research Center for their help in implementing the vivarium platform.

Funding

BL holds a Sentinelle Nord Research Chair, is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Grant No. PJT-451728 and PJT-451858), and the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Grant No. RGPIN-2019-06496) and receives Fonds de Recherche en Santé du Québec (FRQS) Junior-2 salary support. AMR is supported by FRQS scholarships. BG holds the Canada Research Chair in Smart Biomedical Microsystem and is supported by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Grant No. RGPIN-2022-03984).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

BL conceived the project, designed the experiments and wrote the manuscript. BG contributed to the experimental design of the experiments and reviewed the manuscript. VC designed the technical experiments, built the system’s software, performed the ArUco parameter selection, performed the analyses, made the figures and wrote the manuscript. AMR contributed to the analysis of social dynamics, contributed to the figures and to the manuscript. MSM designed the tailtags, generated the video data and contributed to the manuscript. DAR contributed to the ArUco parameter selection. QL and MRP contributed to the animal experiments and video data generation. All authors contributed to the preparation of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benoit Labonté.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coulombe, V., Rivera, A.M., Monfared, S. et al. The Tailtag: A multi-mouse tracking system to measure social dynamics in complex environments. Neuropsychopharmacol. 50, 1336–1345 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-025-02126-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-025-02126-y

Search

Quick links