ArticleBehavior research methods2023
Determining the value of preferred goods based on consumer demand in a home-cage based test for mice.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- General Instructions for Using the IntelliCage with Mice.Current protocols · 2026Article
- Advancing preference testing in humans and animals.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Article
- Refinement of IntelliCage protocols for complex cognitive tasks through replacement of drinking restrictions by incentive-disincentive paradigms.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2023Article
- Challenges and advanced concepts for the assessment of learning and memory function in mice.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2023Review
- Rating enrichment items by female group-housed laboratory mice in multiple binary choice tests using an RFID-based tracking system.PloS one · 2023Article
- Development of an IntelliCage-based cognitive bias test for mice.Open research Europe · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
From the preference of one good over another, the strength of the preference cannot automatically be inferred. While money is the common denominator to assess the value of goods in humans, it appears difficult at first glance to put a price tag on the decisions of laboratory animals. Here we used consumer demand tests to measure how much work female mice expend to obtain access to different liquids. The mice could each choose between two liquids, one of which was free. The amount of work required to access the other liquid, by contrast, increased daily. In this way, the value of the liquid can be determined from a mouse's microeconomic perspective. The unique feature is that our test was carried out in a home-cage based setup. The mice lived in a group but could individually access the test-cage, which was connected to the home-cage via a gate. Thereby the mice were able to perform their task undisturbed by group members and on a self-chosen schedule with minimal influence by the experimenter. Our results show that the maximum number of nosepokes depends on the liquids presented. Mice worked incredibly hard for access to water while a bitter-tasting solution was offered for free whereas they made less nosepokes for sweetened liquids while water was offered for free. The results demonstrate that it is possible to perform automated and home-cage based consumer demand tests in order to ask the mice not only what they like best but also how strong their preference is.
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.