ArticleLearning and motivation2018
Examining the influence of CS duration and US density on cue-potentiated feeding through analyses of licking microstructure.
Article in Learning and motivation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lateral hypothalamic melanin concentrating hormone-expressing neurons both promote and are required for cue-potentiated feeding.Journal of neuroendocrinology · 2026Article
- Devaluing memories of reward: a case for dopamine.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Harmonization of the fastest and densest responses reflects humanlike reaction time in mice.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Dopamine, activation of ingestion and evaluation of response efficacy: a focus on the within-session time-course of licking burst number.Psychopharmacology · 2024Review
- Disentangling the role of NAc D1 and D2 cells in hedonic eating.Molecular psychiatry · 2023Article
- Daily memantine treatment blunts hedonic response to sucrose in rats.Psychopharmacology · 2020Article
- Memantine effects on ingestion microstructure and the effect of administration time: A within-subject study.PloS one · 2020Article
- Characterizing ingestive behavior through licking microstructure: Underlying neurobiology and its use in the study of obesity in animal models.International journal of developmental neuroscience : the official journal of the International Society for Developmental Neuroscience · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
In the current study, groups of mice were trained with either short (20 s) or long (120 s) conditioned stimulus (CS) durations associated with different rates of sucrose unconditioned stimulus (US) delivery, to examine whether different behavioral forms of cue-potentiated feeding in sated mice would be evoked. In training mice received presentations of an auditory CS for 20 s during which a sucrose US was delivered at a density of 1/9 s (Group-20-s). A second group of mice received an auditory CS for 120 s and a US density of 1/49 s (Group-120-s). During training, a shorter CS duration and higher rate of US delivery resulted in greater acquisition of food cup responding, and during the test stage Group-20-s mice also displayed higher CS evoked lick rates, though all mice showed cue-potentiated feeding. An analysis of licking microstructure also revealed that Group-120-s mice displayed CS evoked licking behavior that reflected an increase in the perceived palatability of the sucrose US. These findings are discussed with respect to the influence of CS interval and US density on associatively activated sensory and affective representations of a US, and contrast mediated effects resulting from presentation of excitatory and inhibitory conditioned stimuli.
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.