ArticleAnimal cognition2021
Two-dimensional reward evaluation in mice.
Article in Animal cognition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sex differences in low-dose ethanol effects on motivated behavior and limbic corticostriatal activity in mice.Alcohol, clinical & experimental research · 2026Article
- Poor Decision Making and Sociability Impairment Following Central Serotonin Reduction in Inducible TPH2-Knockdown Rats.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Testing cognitive models of decision-making: selected studies with starlings.Animal cognition · 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
When choosing among multi-attribute options, integrating the full information may be computationally costly and time-consuming. So-called non-compensatory decision rules only rely on partial information, for example when a difference on a single attribute overrides all others. Such rules may be ecologically more advantageous, despite being economically suboptimal. Here, we present a study that investigates to what extent animals rely on integrative rules (using the full information) versus non-compensatory rules when choosing where to forage. Groups of mice were trained to obtain water from dispensers varying along two reward dimensions: volume and probability. The mice's choices over the course of the experiment suggested an initial reliance on integrative rules, later displaced by a sequential rule, in which volume was evaluated before probability. Our results also demonstrate that while the evaluation of probability differences may depend on the reward volumes, the evaluation of volume differences is seemingly unaffected by the reward probabilities.
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.