Single‐case experimental designs for behavioral neuroscience

Soto (2020) wrote a how-to paper, not an experiment. He told brain scientists to drop big-group averages and run single-case designs instead.

He argued that one brain at a time gives clearer answers, wastes fewer animals, and makes replication easier.

There were no new data. The paper is a map: use reversal, multiple-baseline, and alternating-treatments designs when you zap, drug, or light up neurons.

Each animal serves as its own control, so you see if the brain change really moves that one creature’s behavior.

Schulingkamp et al. (2023) already did it. They ran a behavioral-economic demand curve with single rats, exactly what Soto urged. Familiar cagemate or stranger, each rat’s own curve told the story—no group mean needed.

Huntington et al. (2022) stretched the same logic to adults with autism. One adult, three assessors, clear preference shifts—showing the design travels from lab cage to human social settings.

Wahler (1969) proved the power 50 years earlier. One child, home vs school, behavior changed only where the contingency ran—an early demo of within-subject clarity that Soto wants neuroscientists to copy.

If you consult on lab studies or teach research methods, hand this paper to PIs still running 30-mouse groups. Show them Schulingkamp’s rat demand curves as a live example. The same reversal design you use with a young learners client works for a rat pressing a lever for social contact—fewer subjects, faster answers, cleaner graphs. Push for single-case brain-behavior plots in your next IACUC protocol or thesis committee meeting.