ArticleAnimal cognition2022
Evidence of successive negative contrast in terrestrial toads (Rhinella arenarum): central or peripheral effect?
Article in Animal cognition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Prior research with terrestrial toads (Rhinella arenarum) in a water-reinforced instrumental situation indicated a direct relationship between acquisition rate and reward magnitude. However, a reward downshift produced a gradual adjustment of instrumental performance and a rapid adjustment of consummatory performance, rather than the abrupt and transient deterioration of behavior typical of a successive negative contrast effect. In Experiment 1, using a two-chamber box, a downshift from deionized water (which supports maximal rehydration) to 250-mM sodium chloride solution (which supports a lower rehydration), also yielded a gradual adjustment of instrumental behavior. In this experiment, animals received one trial per day and were allowed 300 s of access to the reward in the goal box. Experiment 2 used the same procedure, except that animals were allowed access to the solution in the goal box for 600 s. Under these conditions, reward downshift led to longer latencies (instrumental) and lower rehydration levels (consummatory) than those of unshifted controls, providing evidence for successive negative contrast. Unlike in similar experiments with mammals, the effect was not transient, but persisted relatively unmodified over twelve daily postshift trials. In this case, the possibility of adaptation of the peripheral mechanisms for water uptake is considered. The comparative relevance of these results is discussed in terms of habit formation versus expectancy-guided behavior in vertebrate learning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35612651What 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.