SynthesisFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2024
Determining underlying influences of data variability in the novel object recognition paradigm as used with young pigs.
Synthesis in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Behavioral responses of pigs to dietary alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters: a systematic review.Veterinary research communications · 2026Pooled it
- Validating an updated protocol for the novel object recognition task in young pigs.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
- Establishing the pig as a translational animal model for neurodevelopment.Translational neuroscience · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The novel object recognition (NOR) paradigm is a cognitive test that has been used with many species to detect differences in ability. Various iterations of the paradigm have been implemented, making it difficult to compare results both within and across species. Interpretations of the results are equally diverse, threatening the integrity of the paradigm. These inconsistencies have prompted a deeper dive into the variability of the resultant data. For the purposes of this meta-analysis, data originated from 12 studies involving 367 pigs that were subjected to the same NOR paradigm beginning between postnatal days 21 and 24. The main cognitive measure from the NOR paradigm is recognition index (RI), which was the focus of most of the analyses in this meta-analysis. RI was chosen as the main outcome as it determines a pig's preference for novelty, an innate behavior of cognitively intact pigs. A histogram of RI values (range 0 to 1) showed a bimodal distribution skewed to the right, suggesting that the interpretation of positive performance on the task may need to be stricter. Correlational analyses proved that the number of investigations and investigation time with both the novel and familiar objects were the strongest predictors of resultant RI values. Objective data inclusion criteria were then considered to eliminate non-compliant pigs. Results indicated that requiring at least 5 s of investigation over a minimum of 3 investigations with the novel object reduced overall variability for RI with a concomitant increase in the mean. Further analyses showed that pigs preferred to spend more time with and interact more with the novel object across the entire testing trial, especially in the first minute. Together, these findings suggest that future interpretations of NOR should consider applying stricter statistical analyses as well as additional data processing, such as binning, with emphasis on novel object and familiar object investigation. Overall, modifications to the existing iterations of the NOR paradigm are necessary to improve paradigm reliability.
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.