ArticleMethodsX2019
Development of a control task for clarifying the neural mechanisms underlying tool-use behavior in rats (
Article in MethodsX, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Training of Motion Control May Not Improve Tool-Manipulation Ability in Rats (Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many studies on non-human animals have attempted to investigate the neural mechanisms underlying tool-use behavior. However, previous studies showed considerable non-tool-use-specific differences between tool-use and control tasks. The purpose of the present study was to develop a control training task for studies that investigate the neural mechanisms behind tool-use in rodents. Eight rats were subjected to control tasks which excluded tool-use-specific factors and consisted of training for hook-pulling and hook-choice tasks, as well as tool-choice tests which included tool-use specific factors and were similar to those in a previous study on rats. With the exception of one rat, the results of the hook-choice training showed that the previous study and the present study had similar difficulty levels. In the tool-choice tests of the present study, rats did not choose the functional tools over the non-functional tools when there was no contradiction between their appearance and functionality, which contrasted with the previous study on which this study was based on. These results suggest that the training task that excludes tool-use-specific factors can be appropriately utilized as a control task for studies investigating the neural mechanisms behind tool-use in animals and, potentially, in humans. •Hook-choice training without tool-use-specific factors can be performed as a control task.•Prior tool-use training improved rats' performance in experimental tests.•Control task for rodents allows investigation of the neural mechanisms of tool-use.
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.