Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26156636›Full record

ArticlePsychopharmacology2015

Motivational assessment of mice using the touchscreen operant testing system: effects of dopaminergic drugs.

Christopher J Heath, Timothy J Bussey, Lisa M Saksida

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychopharmacology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Effort, timing and choice: a refined rodent effort choice task with excellent sensitivity to dopamine modulators.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Risk reshapes amygdala representation of choice.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Biological psychiatry global open science · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Christopher J HeathDepartment of Psychology and MRC/Wellcome Trust Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, UK. cjh201@cam.ac.uk.
Timothy J BusseyDepartment of Psychology and MRC/Wellcome Trust Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, UK.
Lisa M SaksidaDepartment of Psychology and MRC/Wellcome Trust Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 089703/Z/09/ZWellcome Trust 093875
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleTouchscreens are widely used to examine rodent cognition. Current paradigms require animals to view stimuli and nose poke at an appropriate touchscreen location. After responding, there is little screen interaction and, as infra-red touchscreens eliminate the need for physical contact, minimal somatosensory feedback. It is therefore unclear if touchscreens can support the vigorous, repetitive responding required in paradigms like progressive ratio (PR) for assessing motivation and effort-related choice (ERC) for assessing decision-making.

objectivesThis study aims to adapt and validate PR and ERC for the rodent touchscreen.

methodsMale C57Bl/6 mice were trained until responding on PR stabilised. Amphetamine, sulpiride and raclopride were administered via the intraperitoneal route to modify performance. Mice were transferred to ERC and paradigm parameters adjusted to demonstrate behavioural modification. ERC reward preference was assessed by home cage choice analysis.

resultsPR performance stabilised within seven sessions. Amphetamine (1 mg/kg) increased and raclopride (0.3 mg/kg) decreased performance by 63 and 28 %, respectively, with a 20-min injection-test interval. Sulpiride (50 mg/kg) decreased performance by 19 % following a 40-min injection-test interval. Increasing ERC operant requirements shifted responding from the operant response-dependent preferred reward towards the freely available alternative.

conclusionsVigorous, repetitive responding is sustainable in touchscreen PR and ERC and task validation mirrors non-touchscreen versions. Thus, motivation and reward-related decision-making can be measured directly with touchscreens and can be evaluated prior to cognitive testing in the same apparatus to avoid confounding by motivational factors.

Indexed as

AmphetamineAnimalsChoice BehaviorCognitionConditioning, OperantDopamine AgentsMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLMotivationRacloprideRewardSulpirideAmphetamineDopamine AgentsRacloprideSulpirideDopamineEffort-related choiceMotivationProgressive ratioRodentTouchscreen

Identifiers

PMID26156636
PMCPMC4600476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.