Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31551727›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2019

Probabilistic Information Modulates the Timed Response Inhibition Deficit in Aging Mice.

Ezgi Gür, Yalçın Akın Duyan, Fuat Balcı

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ezgi GürTiming and Decision Making Laboratory, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Yalçın Akın DuyanTiming and Decision Making Laboratory, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Fuat BalcıTiming and Decision Making Laboratory, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How interval timing is affected by aging constitutes one of the contemporary research questions. There is however a limited number of studies that investigate this research question in animal models of aging. The current study investigated how temporal decision-making is affected by aging. Initially, we trained young (2-3 month-old) and old C57BL/6J male mice (18-19 month-old) independently with short (3 s) and long (9 s) intervals by signaling, in each trial, the hopper associated with the interval that is in effect in that trial. The probability of short and long trials was manipulated (0.25 or 0.75) for different animals in each age group. During testing, both hoppers were illuminated, and thus active trial type was not differentiated. We expected mice to spontaneously combine the independently acquired time interval-location-probability information to adaptively guide their timing behavior in test trials. This adaptive ability and the resultant timing behavior were analyzed and compared between the age groups. Both young and old mice indeed adjusted their timing behavior in an abrupt fashion based on the independently acquired temporal-spatial-probabilistic information. The core timing ability of old mice was also intact. However, old mice had difficulty in terminating an ongoing timed response when the probability for the short trial was higher and this difference disappeared in the group that was exposed to a lower probability of short trials. These results suggest an inhibition problem in old mice as reflected through the threshold modulation process in timed decisions, which is cognitively penetrable to the probabilistic information.

Indexed as

cognitive aginginterval timingprobabilistic reasoningresponse inhibitiontemporal discriminationtemporal processing

Identifiers

PMID31551727
PMCPMC6734164

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.