ArticleBehavioral neuroscience2018
Inter- and intra-mouse variability in odor preferences revealed in an olfactory multiple-choice test.
Article in Behavioral neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cache Pilfering Risks Vary With Seed Species and Pilferers.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Dopaminergic signaling to ventral striatum neurons initiates sniffing behavior.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Natural and Pathological Aging Distinctively Impacts the Pheromone Detection System and Social Behavior.Molecular neurobiology · 2023Article
- Article
- The role of viscosity in flavor preference: plasticity and interactions with taste.Chemical senses · 2022Article
- Sex Differences in Odor Hedonic Perception: An Overview.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Review
- Odor hedonics coding in the vertebrate olfactory bulb.Cell and tissue research · 2021Review
- Adaptive weighting of taste and odor cues during flavor choice.Journal of neurophysiology · 2020Article
- Alterations in odor hedonics in the 5XFAD Alzheimer's disease mouse model and the influence of sex.Behavioral neuroscience · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Animals choose between sensory stimuli, a highly complex behavior which includes detection, discrimination, preference, and memory processes. Rodents are reported to display robust preferences for some odors, for instance, in the context of choosing among possible mates or food items. In contrast to the apparent robustness of responses toward these and other "ethologically relevant" odors, little is known about the robustness of behaviors toward odors which have no overt role in the rodent ecological niche, so-called "nonethologically relevant" odors. We developed an apparatus for monitoring the nose-poking behavior of mice and used this apparatus to explore the prevalence and stability of choices among different odors both across mice, and within mice over successive days. Mice were tested with a panel of either ethologically relevant or nonethologically relevant odors in an olfactory multiple-choice test. Significant preferences to nonethologically relevant odors were observed across the population of mice, with longer investigation durations to some odors more than to others. However, we found substantial inter-mouse variability in these responses, and that responses to these odors even varied within mice across days of testing. Tests with ethologically relevant odors revealed that responses toward these odors were also variable across mice, but within individual mice, responses were somewhat stable. This work establishes an olfactory multiple-choice test for monitoring odor investigation, choice, and preference behaviors and the application of this apparatus to assess across- and within-mouse odor-preference choice stability. These results highlight that odor preferences, as assayed by measuring choice behaviors, are variable. (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.