Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39375395›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Mice monitor their timing errors.

Tutku Öztel, Fuat Balcı

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Tutku ÖztelDepartment of Psychology, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6474-5955
Fuat BalcıDepartment of Psychology, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey. fuat.balci@umanitoba.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3390-9352

Funding

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada RGPIN-2021-03334Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu 117K370
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animals often engage in representationally guided goal-directed behaviors. These behaviors are thus also subjected to representational uncertainty (e.g. timing uncertainty during waiting), which has been previously shown to adaptively guide behaviors normatively. These observations raise the question of whether non-human animals can track the direction and magnitude of their timing errors (i.e. temporal error monitoring). Only a few studies have investigated this question without addressing the key components of temporal error monitoring (e.g. due to differential reinforcement of metacognitive judgments and primary task representation). We conducted the critical test of temporal error monitoring in mice by developing a novel behavioral task that involved temporal production that exponentially favored temporal accuracy and minimized the contribution of sensorimotor noise. The response rate for an upcoming probabilistic reward following the timing performance was used as a proxy for confidence. We found that mice exhibited high reward expectancy after accurate and low reward expectancy after inaccurate timing performance. The reward expectancy decreased as a function of deviations from the target interval for the short and long reproductions; pointing to the symmetrical sensitivity of metacognition to shorter/longer than target responses. These findings suggest a complete temporal error monitoring ability for mice with human-like metacognitive features.

Indexed as

RewardAnimalsBehavior, AnimalMaleMetacognitionMiceMice, Inbred C57BLTime PerceptionAnimal behaviorHigher order cognitionInterval timingResponse rateTemporal error monitoring

Identifiers

PMID39375395
PMCPMC11458620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.