Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29897906›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Preference test of sound among multiple alternatives in rats.

Ryo Soga, Tomoyo Isoguchi Shiramatsu, Hirokazu Takahashi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ryo SogaResearch Center for Advanced Science and Technology, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Tomoyo Isoguchi ShiramatsuResearch Center for Advanced Science and Technology, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Hirokazu TakahashiResearch Center for Advanced Science and Technology, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-1834-3832

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conditioned place preference (CPP) tests in rodents have been well established to measure preference induced by secondary reinforcing properties, but conventional assays are not sensitive enough to measure innate, weak preference, or the primary reinforcing property of a conditioned stimulus. We designed a novel CPP assay with better sensitivity and efficiency in quantifying and ranking preference of particular sounds among multiple alternatives. Each test tone was presented according to the location of free-moving rats in the arena, where assignment of location to each tone changed in every 20-s session. We demonstrated that our assay was able to rank tone preference among 4 alternatives within 12.5 min (125 s (habituation) + 25 s/sessions × 25 sessions). In order to measure and rank sound preference, we attempted to use sojourn times with each test sound ([Formula: see text]), and a preference index (PI) based on transition matrices of initial and end sounds in every session. Both [Formula: see text] and PI revealed similar trends of innate preference in which rats preferred test conditions in the following order: silence, 40-, 20-, then 10-kHz tones. Further, rats exhibited a change in preference after an classical conditioning of the 20-kHz tone with a rewarding microstimulation of the dopaminergic system. We also demonstrated that PI was a more robust and sensitive indicator than [Formula: see text] when the locomotion activity level of rats became low due to habituation to the assay repeated over sessions. Thus, our assay offers a novel method of evaluating auditory preference that is superior to conventional CPP assays, offering promising prospects in the field of sensory neuroscience.

Indexed as

Conditioning, PsychologicalAnimalsConditioning, ClassicalLocomotionMaleRatsRats, Sprague-DawleySound

Identifiers

PMID29897906
PMCPMC5999090

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.