ArticlePsychopharmacology2018
Effects of multi-modal cues on conditioned place preference in C57BL/6J and DBA/2J mice.
Article in Psychopharmacology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Context features influence alcohol reward and motivation.Alcohol, clinical & experimental research · 2026Article
- Projection-specific roles of basolateral amygdala Thy1 neurons in alcohol-induced place preference.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Article
- Nucleus accumbens core chemogenetic excitation in male mice and chemogenetic inhibition in female mice reduced ethanol reward.Biology of sex differences · 2025Article
- Inbred Mice Again at Stake: How the Cognitive Profile of the Wild-Type Mouse Background Discloses Pathogenic Effects of APP Mutations.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2022Review
- Morphine and ethanol pretreatment effects on expression and extinction of ethanol-induced conditioned place preference and aversion in mice.Psychopharmacology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationalePrevious work has shown that some mouse strains (e.g., DBA/2J [D2]) readily develop robust ethanol-induced conditioned place preference (CPP) while others (e.g., C57BL/6J [B6]) do not. Though commonly interpreted as a difference between strains in sensitivity to ethanol reward, other explanations for this finding are possible.
objectivesTo explore the hypothesis that variation in sensitivity to contextual cues underlies CPP differences, the present work investigated ethanol-induced CPP in D2 and B6 mice trained with a standard tactile (floor) cue procedure compared to mice trained with tactile plus visual-spatial cues.
methodsIn an unbiased CPP procedure, mice were assigned to either a single element cue (one-compartment apparatus with tactile cue presented in the dark) or multi-modal cues (two-compartment apparatus with distinct tactile floors and lights on). To track CPP development, mice received preference tests during training in addition to a final test.
resultsAdding visual-spatial cues accelerated CPP acquisition in both D2 and B6 mice. However, this enhancement was observed after just one ethanol-conditioning trial in D2 mice, but was observed only after four ethanol-conditioning trials in B6 mice. Differences between groups trained with single or multi-modal cues disappeared as conditioning reached asymptote, with D2 mice showing a more rapid loss of the effect and a higher maximum CPP.
conclusionsAlthough multi-modal cues produce more rapid conditioning, their inability to reduce or eliminate strain differences in CPP supports the interpretation that these strains differ in their sensitivity to ethanol reward.
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.