ArticleAnimal cognition2022
Incrementing non-matching- but not matching-to-sample is rapidly learned in an automated version of the odor span task.
Article in Animal cognition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evidence for novelty reward cross-cueing in the odor span task in rats: implications for odor-based reward-motivated tasks.Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.)Article
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
The odor span task (OST) is frequently used to assess memory capacity in rodents. Odor stimuli are presented in a large arena and choices of session-novel odors produce food reward. The procedure can be described as an incrementing non-matching-to-sample contingency because on each trial one new stimulus is presented along with one or more previously presented (non-reinforced) comparison odors. An automated version of this task has recently been developed in which odors are presented with an olfactometer in an operant chamber using a successive conditional discrimination procedure. The present study compared the acquisition of matching- vs. non-matching-to-sample versions of the task with six rats tested under each procedure. All six rats trained on the non-matching variation showed rapid acquisition of the discrimination with high rates of responding to odor stimuli when they were session-novel and low rates of responding to subsequent presentations of those odors. However, only three of the six rats trained on the matching variation met acquisition criteria, and two of the three that did acquire the task required extensive training to do so. These results support findings from the OST that rats can differentiate between stimuli that are session-novel and those previously encountered, but also that a matching contingency is more difficult to learn than a non-matching arrangement. These findings parallel differences observed between acquisition of simple matching- and non-matching-to-sample tasks, but accounts such as novelty preference or the oddity preference effect may not be sufficient to explain the present results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35217968What 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.