Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27379719›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition2016

"Contexts control negative contrast and restrict the expression of flavor preference conditioning": Correction to Austen and Sanderson (2016).

Abstract readPublished Erratum
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

0 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reports an error in "Contexts control negative contrast and restrict the expression of flavor preference conditioning" by Joseph M. Austen and David J. Sanderson (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 2016[Jan], Vol 42[1], 95-105). In Table 2 of the article, the conditions in Experiment 3 are labeled AB and XY, but they should be AX and BY. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2015-59080-002.) Consumption of a high concentration of sucrose can have either a detrimental, negative contrast effect or a facilitatory, preference conditioning effect on subsequent consumption of a low concentration of sucrose, depending on the cues that are present during consumption. The role of context and flavor cues in determining these effects were studied using analysis of the microstructure of licking in mice. Exposure to a high concentration followed by exposure to a low concentration resulted in a transient reduction in mean lick cluster size, which was context dependent (Experiment 1). However, there was no change in the total number of licks or overall consumption. When a flavor that had previously been paired with a high concentration was paired with a low concentration, there was an increase in the total number of licks, and overall consumption, but no change in the mean lick cluster size (Experiment 2). Pairing a high concentration with a flavor in a particular context before pairing the context and flavor compound with a low concentration resulted in abolishing the expression of the flavor preference conditioning effect on the total number of licks and consumption (Experiment 3). These results demonstrate that although context and flavor cues have dissociable effects on licking behavior, their interaction has an antagonistic effect on the behavioral expression of memory. (PsycINFO Database Record

Identifiers

PMID27379719
PMCPMC4933497

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.