ArticlePsychopharmacology2024
Knowledge by omission: the significance of omissions in the 5-choice serial reaction time task.
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.
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aberrant striatal firing mediates impulsive decision-making in a mouse model of Parkinson's disease.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Sex differences in task engagement and lapse rate during reward learning.Oxford open neuroscience · 2026Article
- Prefrontal cortical microglial transcriptome relates to mouse offspring executive function deficits after perinatal opioid exposure in a sex-dependent manner.Brain, behavior, and immunity · 2025Article
- Inhibition of RtTg neurons reverses methamphetamine-induced attention deficits.Acta neuropathologica communications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.