Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32739841›Full record

ArticleDevelopmental cognitive neuroscience2020

Pro-social preference in an automated operant two-choice reward task under different housing conditions: Exploratory studies on pro-social decision making.

Jiska Kentrop, Aikaterini Kalamari, Chiara Hinna Danesi, John J Kentrop, Marinus H van IJzendoorn, Marian J Bakermans-Kranenburg, Marian Joëls, Rixt van der Veen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Body language signals for rodent social communication.Current opinion in neurobiology · 2021
    Review
  9. Teaming up to understand individual development.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Jiska KentropDept. Translational Neuroscience, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Aikaterini KalamariDept. Translational Neuroscience, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Chiara Hinna DanesiDept. Translational Neuroscience, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
John J KentropDept. Translational Neuroscience, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Marinus H van IJzendoornDept. Psychology, Education and Child Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Primary Care Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Marian J Bakermans-KranenburgFaculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Marian JoëlsDept. Translational Neuroscience, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands; University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Rixt van der VeenDept. Translational Neuroscience, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands. Electronic address: r.van.der.veen@fsw.leidenuniv.nl.
Utrecht University · NLLeiden University · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLUniversity of Cambridge · GBVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study, we aimed to develop a behavioral task that measures pro-social decision making in rats. A fully automated, operant pro-social two-choice task is introduced that quantifies pro-social preferences for a mutual food reward in a set-up with tightly controlled task contingencies. Pairs of same-sex adult Wistar rats were placed in an operant chamber divided into two compartments (one rat per compartment), separated by a transparent barrier with holes that allowed the rats to see, hear, smell, but not touch each other. Test rats could earn a sucrose pellet either for themselves (own reward) or for themselves and the partner (both reward) by means of lever pressing. On average, male rats showed a 60 % preference for the lever that yielded a food reward for both themselves and their partner. In contrast, females did not show lever preference, regardless of the estrous cycle phase. Next, the impact of juvenile environmental factors on male rat social decision making was studied. Males were group-housed from postnatal day 26 onwards in complex housing Marlau™ cages that provided social and physical enrichment and stimulation in the form of novelty. Complex housed males did not show a preference for the pro-social lever.

Indexed as

AnimalsChoice BehaviorConditioning, OperantDecision MakingMaleRatsRats, WistarRewardComplex housingFood rewardPro-social decision makingRatsSocial developmentTwo-choice operant task

Identifiers

PMID32739841
PMCPMC7393525
OpenAlexW3043623304

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.