Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37878886›Full record

ArticleBrazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica2023

Comparison of exploratory behavior of male and female woodlice (Armadillidium vulgare).

M Cazentine, R Bonuti, S Morato

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

M CazentineLaboratório de Comportamento Exploratório, Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-3945-4390
R BonutiLaboratório de Comportamento Exploratório, Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4165-0432
S MoratoLaboratório de Comportamento Exploratório, Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7323-5607

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are several studies in the literature showing that male and female rats explore novel environments and exhibit different exploration patterns when submitted to different apparatuses. In general, female rats spend more time moving and exploring the apparatuses than males do. A previous study showed that male woodlice (Armadillidium vulgare) explore novel environments in a very similar way to male rats (Rattus norvegicus) when tested in apparatuses analogous to the open-field test and light/dark box. Since that study was conducted only with male rats and woodlice, and since they exhibited very similar patterns of behavior, the present experiment aimed at investigating whether male and female woodlice explore novel environments with different behavioral patterns. Female and male woodlice were tested in the open-field and in the dry/moist box. Results obtained in the open-field test showed that both males and females remained longer in the corners than along the walls and avoided staying in the center. However, females remained longer along the walls and less in the corners. In the dry/moist box, there were no significant differences between the sexes: both females and males remained significantly longer in the moist compartment.

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalExploratory BehaviorAnimalsFemaleMaleRats

Identifiers

PMID37878886
PMCPMC10591491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.