ReviewJournal of fish biology2025
Lessons in cognition: A review of maze designs and procedures used to measure spatial learning in fish.
Review in Journal of fish biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lessons in cognition: A review of maze designs and procedures used to measure spatial learning in fish.Journal of fish biology · 2025Review
- A reinvestigation of cognitive styles in sticklebacks: decision success varies with behavioral type.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
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 use of different mazes to assess spatial learning has become more common in fish behavior studies in recent decades. This increase in fish cognition research has opened the door to numerous possibilities for exciting and diverse questions, such as identifying ecological drivers of spatial cognition and understanding the role individual variation plays in navigational abilities. There are many different types of mazes, each with its own specific considerations, making it challenging to determine exactly which spatial test is the most relevant and appropriate for a particular experiment. Many spatial mazes, such as the T-maze and Y-maze, have been successfully adapted from rodent studies, particularly with respect to zebrafish, a widely accepted non-mammalian model in biomedical studies. Standardization across studies is increasing with these easily accessible maze designs, validating them for use in fish; however, variations in design (e.g., length of arms and scale) and procedure still exist, and the impact of these variations on results is largely unknown. The efforts to standardize mazes outside zebrafish work are also more limited. Other mazes have been developed specifically for use on fish, with design modifications varying widely, making it difficult to draw comparisons. In this review, we have highlighted the many design and procedural elements that should be considered for the acquisition of reliable behavioral data, with the goal of drawing readers' attention to aspects of experimentation that are often not given the careful consideration that they deserve. We then argue that additional focused research and reporting is needed to produce more reliable methods in spatial learning research across a broader range of subjects.
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.