ArticleScientific reports2023
Automating licking bias correction in a two-choice delayed match-to-sample task to accelerate learning.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing quantity combination and dissociation in giraffes.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Quantifying nonmnemonic strategies in two-alternative forced-choice delayed matching and nonmatching-to-position tasks in mice (Mus musculus) using automated video tracking technologies.Learning & behavior · 2026Article
- Open-Source Platform for Adjustable Training Regimes in Freely Moving and Head-Fixed Mice.eNeuro · 2026Article
- Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Animals often display choice bias, or a preference for one option over the others, which can significantly impede learning new tasks. Delayed match-to-sample (DMS) tasks with two-alternative choices of lickports on the left and right have been widely used to study sensory processing, working memory, and associative memory in head-fixed animals. However, extensive training time, primarily due to the animals' biased licking responses, limits their practical utility. Here, we present the implementation of an automated side bias correction system in an olfactory DMS task, where the lickport positions and the ratio of left- and right-rewarded trials are dynamically adjusted to counterbalance mouse's biased licking responses during training. The correction algorithm moves the preferred lickport farther away from the mouse's mouth and the non-preferred lickport closer, while also increasing the proportion of non-preferred side trials when biased licking occurs. We found that adjusting lickport distances and the proportions of left- versus right-rewarded trials effectively reduces the mouse's side bias. Further analyses reveal that these adjustments also correlate with subsequent improvements in behavioral performance. Our findings suggest that the automated side bias correction system is a valuable tool for enhancing the applicability of behavioral tasks involving two-alternative lickport choices.
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.