ArticleAnimal cognition2022
Count-based decision-making in mice: numerosity vs. stimulus control.
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
Numerical and temporal control of behavior is ubiquitous across many species of animals. Recent studies showed that in the presence of reliable discriminative stimuli, mice ignore temporal relations and probabilistic information but when discriminative stimuli become non-informative, the same mice can spontaneously start relying on previously experienced time intervals and probabilities. Similar dynamics do not readily generalize to counting behavior since the response-outcome contingency functions differ when reinforcement depends on the number vs. timing of responding. In the current study, mice (N = 32) learned to press two different levers 10 (few) or 20 (many) times, while the active lever was signaled by a light stimulus. The probability of the few/many trials was manipulated between groups. During testing, the informative value of light stimulus was eliminated by signaling both few- and many-levers. In a quarter of training trials, mice ignored the discriminative stimulus and adopted a numerical decision strategy (starting to respond on the few-option and then switching to the many-option in many trials) that was sensitive to probabilistic information. The frequency but not the probability-sensitive parametrization of switching behavior changed when the discriminative stimulus became non-informative in testing. These findings suggest that there is a relatively strong representational control over counting behavior even in conditions that afford strong stimulus control.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35843989What 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.