ArticleBio-protocol2020
The Mouse Gambling Task: Assessing Individual Decision-making Strategies in Mice.
Article in Bio-protocol, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Left and Right Hemispheric Lateralization as an Overlooked Variable in Psychiatric Disease: Evidence Across Species.Biological psychiatry · 2026Review
- Maximising translational value of the Iowa gambling task in preclinical studies through the use of the rodent touchscreen.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Review
- Stress-altering anterior insular cortex activity affects risk decision-making behavior in mice of different sexes.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2023Article
- Refinement of IntelliCage protocols for complex cognitive tasks through replacement of drinking restrictions by incentive-disincentive paradigms.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decision-making is a complex cognitive process which consists of choosing one option among several alternatives. In humans, this process is featured in the Iowa gambling task (IGT), a decision-making task that mimics real life situations by reproducing uncertain conditions based on probabilistic rewards or penalties (see Background). Several authors wanted to adapt the IGT in rodents with subtle differences in protocols that match various aspects of the human task. Here we propose, for the first time in mice, a protocol that contains the most important characteristics of the IGT: 4 different options, choices based on 4 ambiguous outcomes with immediate and long term rewards, a total of 100 trials, no learning of the contingency before the task, and presence of both a certain reward and a probable penalty. During this task, mice have to choose between options more or less advantageous in the short and long term by developing a decision-making strategy that differs between individuals. Therefore, the strength of this protocol is that it is one of the first to enable the study of decision-making in a complex situation, and demonstrates inter-individual differences regarding decision-making strategies in mice.
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.