ArticleAnimal cognition2023
Social factors influence solo and rat dyads exploration of an unfamiliar open field.
Article in Animal cognition, 2023. 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.
- Similar processing of novelty in rat dorsal and intermediate CA1 despite differences in spatial tuning.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
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
Exploring new and unfamiliar environments is critical for survival, providing information on food, shelter, mates, and sources of danger. The open field paradigm is commonly used to study exploration and anxiety-like behaviors in the lab. Many social animals, like humans and rats, may explore their environments in social groups; however, relatively few studies have investigated the influence of conspecifics on open field activity. Here, we provide a comparison of individual (solo) or pairs of male rats (dyads) exploring and interacting across repeated exposures to an unfamiliar (Day 1) or more familiar (Day 2) open field. Both solo rats and dyads explored a larger area, traveled further, and spent less time near the maze walls on the second maze exposure. Solo rats explored a larger area and spent less time near the maze walls than dyads on both days because dyads spent more time socializing rather than exploring the environment. Furthermore, we compared familiar dyads that were co-housed for seven days versus stranger dyads that met for the first time in the open field. While familiar and stranger dyads did not differ in maze exploration, strangers spent more time interacting nose to nose than nose to anogenital. These results indicate that the degree of familiarity with the environment does not interact with the tendency of dyads to socialize rather than explore the environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35931922What 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.