ArticlePloS one2017
Preference index supported by motivation tests in Nile tilapia.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fish welfare in a changing world: New developments and current challenges.Journal of fish biology · 2026Review
- Preference and Motivation Tests for Body Tactile Stimulation in Fish.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- Animal welfare risks of global aquaculture.Science advances · 2021Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The identification of animal preferences is assumed to provide better rearing environments for the animals in question. Preference tests focus on the frequency of approaches or the time an animal spends in proximity to each item of the investigated resource during a multiple-choice trial. Recently, a preference index (PI) was proposed to differentiate animal preferences from momentary responses (Sci Rep, 2016, 6:28328, DOI: 10.1038/srep28328). This index also quantifies the degree of preference for each item. Each choice response is also weighted, with the most recent responses weighted more heavily, but the index includes the entire bank of tests, and thus represents a history-based approach. In this study, we compared this PI to motivation tests, which consider how much effort is expended to access a resource. We performed choice tests over 7 consecutive days for 34 Nile tilapia fish that presented with different colored compartments in each test. We first detected the preferred and non-preferred colors of each fish using the PI and then tested their motivation to reach these compartments. We found that fish preferences varied individually, but the results were consistent with the motivation profiles, as individual fish were more motivated (the number of touches made on transparent, hinged doors that prevented access to the resource) to access their preferred items. On average, most of the 34 fish avoided the color yellow and showed less motivation to reach yellow and red colors. The fish also exhibited greater motivation to access blue and green colors (the most preferred colors). These results corroborate the PI as a reliable tool for the identification of animal preferences. We recommend this index to animal keepers and researchers to identify an animal's preferred conditions.
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.