ArticleChemical senses2015
Characterizing olfactory binary mixture interactions in Fischer 344 rats using behavioral reaction times.
Article in Chemical senses, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decline of prefrontal cortical-mediated executive functions but attenuated delay discounting in aged Fischer 344 × brown Norway hybrid rats.Neurobiology of aging · 2017Article
- Awake, long-term intranasal insulin treatment does not affect object memory, odor discrimination, or reversal learning in mice.Physiology & behavior · 2017Article
- Interaction between age and perceptual similarity in olfactory discrimination learning in F344 rats: relationships with spatial learning.Neurobiology of aging · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Response times provide essential subthreshold perceptual data that extend beyond accuracy alone. Behavioral reaction times (RTs) were used to characterize rats' ability to detect individual odorants in a series of complimentary binary odorant mixture ratios. We employed an automated, liquid-dilution olfactometer to train Fischer 344 rats (N = 8) on an odor identification task using nonreinforced probe trials. Binary mixture ratios composed of aliphatic odorants (citral and octanol) were arranged such that relative contributions of the 2 components varied systematically by a factor of 1% (v/v). Odorant concentrations for the target (S+), control (S-), and mixture (S+:S-) odorants were presented relative to threshold for each rat. Rats were initially trained to respond by licking at a spout to obtain liquid reward for either citral or octanol as the reinforced target (S+) odorant. After achieving 100% accuracy, rats were transferred to variable ratio (VR 2) reinforcement for correct responding. Nonreinforced probe trials (2 per block of 22 trials) were tested for each mixture ratio and recorded as either S+ (rats lick-responded in the presence of the mixture) or S- (rats refrained from licking), thereby indicating detection of the trained, S+ odorant. To determine the perceived salience for each ratio, RTs (latency from odorant onset to lick response) were recorded for each trial. Consistent with previous studies, RTs for both odorants were shortest (~150-200ms) when the probe trials consisted of a single, monomolecular component. Binary mixtures that contained as little as 1% of the S-, nontarget odorant, however, were sufficiently different perceptually to increase behavioral RTs (i.e., rats hesitated longer before responding); RTs changed systematically as a function of the binary ratio. Interestingly, the rate of RT change was dependent on which odorant served as the S+, suggesting an asymmetric interaction between the 2 odorants. The data demonstrate the value of behavioral RT as a sensitive measure of suprathreshold perceptual responding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.