ArticleBehavioral neuroscience2016
Systematic variation of acquisition rate in delay eyelid conditioning.
Article in Behavioral neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inactivation of the interpositus nucleus during unpaired extinction does not prevent extinction of conditioned eyeblink responses or conditioning-specific reflex modification.Behavioral neuroscience · 2019Article
- Grouping subjects based on conditioning criteria reveals differences in acquisition rates and in strength of conditioning-specific reflex modification.Neurobiology of learning and memory · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Averaging artifacts inherent in group acquisition curves can mask behavioral phenomena that are potentially revealing in terms of underlying neural mechanisms. To address this, we implemented a behavioral analysis of 106 rabbits trained over 4 sessions using delay eyelid conditioning. Group results showed the typical monotonic increase in conditioned responses (CRs). For most subjects CRs first appeared (as indexed by the criterion of 8 CRs in 9 trials) during the first 18 trials of the second training session. Subdividing subjects according to the training block at which they met criterion revealed systematic differences in the subsequent rate that CR amplitudes increased, but not in asymptotic CR amplitudes. Subjects meeting criterion early in sessions showed more rapid increases in CR amplitude than those meeting criterion later in sessions. This effect was solely dependent on how early within a session criterion was met, as subjects meeting criterion at the beginning of the third and fourth sessions showed more rapid increases in CR amplitude than those meeting criterion after the first 18 trials of the second session. The exceptions were the 7% of the subjects that met criterion late in the first session. Their CR amplitudes increased at a rate similar to subjects meeting criterion early in sessions. These results suggest an interplay between consolidation processes and a previously reported short-term plasticity process that makes CR acquisition a nonmonotonic and complex function of the point during training sessions at which CRs first appear. (PsycINFO Database Record
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.