ReviewCurrent opinion in behavioral sciences2018
Rat models of reward deficits in psychiatric disorders.
Review in Current opinion in behavioral sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preclinical models for evaluating psychedelics in the treatment of major depressive disorder.British journal of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Calves fed more milk prioritise play over feeding in a hole-board test.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The development of translational tasks for preclinical psychedelic research in psychiatry.Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2026Review
- Investigating neuropsychological and reward-related deficits in a chronic corticosterone-induced model of depression.Psychoneuroendocrinology · 2023Article
- The importance of a multidimensional approach to the preclinical study of major depressive disorder and apathy.Emerging topics in life sciences · 2022Article
- Comparison of acute treatment with delayed-onset versus rapid-acting antidepressants on effort-related choice behaviour.Psychopharmacology · 2020Article
- Comparison of conventional and rapid-acting antidepressants in a rodent probabilistic reversal learning task.Brain and neuroscience advancesArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Loss of interest in rewarding activities is a hallmark of many psychiatric disorders and may be relevant for neurodegenerative disorders and patients suffering from brain injury. There is increasing evidence that deficits in reward-related behaviour are more complex than previously described. The traditional view of anhedonia as 'the inability to experience pleasure' may be too limited to fully encompass the types of reward deficit observed in these patients. Developments in methods to measure different aspects of reward processing in humans and animals are starting to provide insights into the complexity of this behaviour. In this article we consider the rodent models which have traditionally been used to study reward deficits in psychiatric disorders and consider their limitations relative to clinical findings. We then discuss work where methods derived from human neuropsychological tests are providing insights into the complexity of reward-related behaviour. Specifically, we consider tasks which investigate different aspects of reward-related behaviour focusing on learning and memory as well as decision-making and consider what these may mean in terms of how we model reward deficits in rodents.
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.