ArticleeNeuro
Male Goal-Tracker and Sign-Tracker Rats Do Not Differ in Neuroendocrine or Behavioral Measures of Stress Reactivity.
Article in eNeuro. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Motivation, attention, and uncertainty: insights from animal and human research and implications for addiction.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- A mechanical task for measuring sign- and goal-tracking in humans: A proof-of-concept study.Behavioural brain research · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Environmental cues attain the ability to guide behavior via learned associations. As predictors, cues can elicit adaptive behavior and lead to valuable resources (e.g., food). For some individuals, however, cues are transformed into incentive stimuli and elicit motivational states that can be maladaptive. The goal-tracker (GT)/sign-tracker (ST) animal model captures individual differences in cue-motivated behaviors, with reward-associated cues serving as predictors of reward for both phenotypes but becoming incentive stimuli to a greater degree for STs. While these distinct phenotypes are characterized based on Pavlovian conditioned approach (PavCA) behavior, they exhibit differences on a number of behaviors relevant to psychopathology. To further characterize the neurobehavioral endophenotype associated with individual differences in cue-reward learning, neuroendocrine and behavioral profiles associated with stress and anxiety were investigated in male GT, ST, and intermediate responder (IR) rats. It was revealed that baseline corticosterone (CORT) increases with Pavlovian learning, but to the same degree, regardless of phenotype. No significant differences in behavior were observed between GTs and STs during an elevated plus maze (EPM) or open field test (OFT), nor were there differences in CORT response to the OFT or physiological restraint. Upon examination of central markers associated with stress reactivity, we found that STs have greater glucocorticoid receptor (GR) mRNA expression in the ventral hippocampus, with no phenotypic differences in the dorsal hippocampus or prelimbic cortex (PrL). These findings demonstrate that GTs and STs do not differ on stress-related and anxiety-related behaviors, and suggest that differences in neuroendocrine measures between these phenotypes can be attributed to distinct cue-reward learning styles.
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.