ArticleAffective science2024
You are How You Eat: Foraging Behavior as a Potential Novel Marker of Rat Affective State.
Article in Affective science, 2024. 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.
- Article
- Rat boredom-like behaviour in a monotonous versus a varied foraging task: effects of sensory variation.Animal cognition · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effective and safe foraging requires animals to behave according to the expectations they have about the rewards, threats, and costs in their environment. Since these factors are thought to be reflected in the animals' affective states, we can use foraging behavior as a window into those states. In this study, rats completed a foraging task in which they had repeatedly to decide whether to continue to harvest a food source despite increasing time costs, or to forgo food to switch to a different food source. Rats completed this task across two experiments using manipulations designed to induce both positive and negative, and shorter- and longer- term changes in affective state: removal and return of enrichment (Experiment 1), implementation and reversal of an unpredictable housing treatment (Experiment 1), and delivery of rewards (tickling or sucrose) and punishers (air-puff or back-handling) immediately prior to testing (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, rats completed fewer trials and were more prone to switching between troughs when housed in standard, compared to enriched, housing conditions. In Experiment 2, rats completed more trials following pre-test tickling compared to pre-test sucrose delivery. However, we also found that they were prone to disengaging from the task, suggesting they were really choosing between three options: 'harvest', 'switch', or 'not work'. This limits the straightforward interpretation of the results. At present, foraging behavior within the context of this task cannot reliably be used as an indicator of an affective state in animals. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42761-024-00242-4.
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.