ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2017
Food quality and conspicuousness shape improvements in olfactory discrimination by mice.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nutritional missed opportunity costs: wild house mice (Mus musculus) consistently consume less preferred food, with implications for control.Pest management science · 2026Article
- The eNOS isoform exhibits increased expression and activation in the main olfactory bulb of nNOS knock-out mice.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2023Article
- Energy deficiency promotes rhythmic foraging behavior by activating neurons in paraventricular hypothalamic nucleus.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
- Behavioural drivers of survey bias: interactive effects of personality, the perceived risk and device properties.Oecologia · 2021Article
- Misinformation tactics protect rare birds from problem predators.Science advances · 2021Article
- Phantom decoys alter perceived missed opportunity costs and increase risky foraging decisions.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
How animals locate nutritious but camouflaged prey items with increasing accuracy is not well understood. Olfactory foraging is common in vertebrates and the nutritional desirability of food should influence the salience of odour cues. We used signal detection analysis to test the effect of nutritional value relative to the conspicuousness of food patches on rates of foraging improvement of wild house mice Mus musculus searching for buried food (preferred peanuts or non-preferred barley). Olfactory cues were arranged to make food patches conspicuous or difficult to distinguish using a novel form of olfactory camouflage. Regardless of food type or abundance, mice searching for conspicuous food patches performed significantly better than mice searching for camouflaged patches. However, food type influenced how mice responded to different levels of conspicuousness. Mice searching for peanuts improved by similar rates regardless of whether food was easy or hard to find, but mice searching for barley showed significant differences, improving rapidly when food was conspicuous but declining in accuracy when food was camouflaged. Our results demonstrate a fundamental tenet of olfactory foraging that nutritional desirability influences rates of improvement in odour discrimination, enabling nutritious but camouflaged prey to be located with increasing efficiency.
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.