ArticlePloS one2018
Preference test of sound among multiple alternatives in rats.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dopamine in the Nucleus Accumbens Signals Salience of Auditory Deviance.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
- Functional MRI reveals subcortical auditory push-pull interactions requiring intercollicular integrity.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.