ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2019
Feeding behaviour, risk-sensitivity and response control: effects of 5-HT
Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transcriptomic mapping of the 5-HT receptor landscape.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- Exploring preferences for variable delays over fixed delays to high-value food rewards as a model of food-seeking behaviours in humans.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019Article
- Risk taking and impulsive behaviour: fundamental discoveries, theoretical perspectives and clinical implications.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
People, like animals, tend to choose the variable option when given the choice between a fixed and variable delay to reward where, in the variable delay condition, some rewards are available immediately (Laura-Jean et al. 2019 Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 374, 20180141. ( doi:10.1098/rstb.2018.0141 )). This bias has been suggested to reflect evolutionary pressures resulting from food scarcity in the past placing a premium on obtaining food quickly that can win out against the risks of sometimes sustaining longer delays to food. The psychologies mediating this effect may become maladaptive in the developed world where food is readily available contributing, potentially, to overeating and obesity. Here, we report our development of a novel touchscreen task in mice allowing comparisons of the impact of food delay and food magnitude across species. We show that mice exhibit the typical preference, as shown by humans, for variable over fixed delays to rewards but no preference when it comes to fixed versus variable reward amounts and further show that this bias is sensitive to manipulations of the 5-HT
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.