Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33654712›Full record

ArticleBio-protocol2020

The Mouse Gambling Task: Assessing Individual Decision-making Strategies in Mice.

Elsa Pittaras, Arnaud Rabat, Sylvie Granon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Elsa PittarasBiology Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020, USA.
Arnaud RabatUnité Fatigue et Vigilance, Département Environnements Opérationnels, Institut de Recherche Biomédicale des armées, 1 place du Général Valérie ANDRE, BP 73, 91223 Bretigny-sur-Orge cedex, France.
Sylvie GranonNeurobiology of decision making, Paris-Saclay Institute of Neuroscience (Neuro-PSI), CNRS UMR 9197, 91400 Orsay, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Decision-makingGamblingInter-individual differencesMazeMouseRewardStrategies

Identifiers

PMID33654712
PMCPMC7842597

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.