Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38443605›Full record

ArticlePsychopharmacology2024

Knowledge by omission: the significance of omissions in the 5-choice serial reaction time task.

Caroline Vouillac-Mendoza, Audrey Durand, Serge H Ahmed, Karine Guillem

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychopharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Caroline Vouillac-MendozaInstitut de Neurosciences Cognitives et Intégratives d'Aquitaine, CNRS UMR 5287, Université de Bordeaux, Bâtiment BBS - 2ème étage 2, Rue du Dr Hoffmann Martinot, Bordeaux, F-33000, France.
Audrey DurandImetronic®, Marcheprime, F- 33380, France.
Serge H AhmedInstitut de Neurosciences Cognitives et Intégratives d'Aquitaine, CNRS UMR 5287, Université de Bordeaux, Bâtiment BBS - 2ème étage 2, Rue du Dr Hoffmann Martinot, Bordeaux, F-33000, France.
Karine GuillemInstitut de Neurosciences Cognitives et Intégratives d'Aquitaine, CNRS UMR 5287, Université de Bordeaux, Bâtiment BBS - 2ème étage 2, Rue du Dr Hoffmann Martinot, Bordeaux, F-33000, France. karine.guillem@u-bordeaux.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9623-3698
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRInstitut de Microélectronique, Electromagnétisme et Photonique · FR

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche ANR- 15-CE37-0008-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleThe 5-choice serial reaction time task (5-CSRTT) is commonly used to assess attention in rodents. Manipulation of this task by decreasing the light stimulus duration is often used to probe attentional capacity and causes a decrease in accuracy and an increase in omissions. However, although a decrease in response accuracy is commonly interpreted as a decrease in attention, it is more difficult to interpret an increase in omissions in terms of attentional performance.

methodsHere we present a series of experiments in rats that seeks to investigate the origins of these key behavioral measures of attention in the 5-CSRTT. After an initial training in the 5-CSRTT, rats were tested in a variable stimulus duration procedure to increase task difficulty and probe visual attentional capacity under several specific controlled conditions.

conclusionsWe found that response accuracy reflects visuospatial sustained attentional processing, as commonly interpreted, while response omission reflects rats' ignorance about the stimulus location, presumably due to failure to pay attention to the curved wall during its presentation. Moreover, when rats lack of relevant information, they choose not to respond instead of responding randomly. Finally, pretreatment with nicotine selectively decreased response omissions, without affecting response accuracy, particularly when the attentional demand was high. Overall, our results indicate that response accuracy and response omission thus correspond to two distinct attentional states.

Indexed as

AttentionChoice BehaviorReaction TimeAnimalsBehavior, AnimalMaleNicotinePhotic StimulationRatsRats, Long-EvansNicotine5-choice serial reaction time taskAttentionRats

Identifiers

PMID38443605
OpenAlexW4392515298

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.