Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39391344›Full record

ArticleAffective science2024

You are How You Eat: Foraging Behavior as a Potential Novel Marker of Rat Affective State.

Vikki Neville, Emily Finnegan, Elizabeth S Paul, Molly Davidson, Peter Dayan, Michael Mendl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Vikki NevilleBristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford, UK.
Emily FinneganBristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford, UK.
Elizabeth S PaulBristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford, UK.
Molly DavidsonBristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford, UK.
Peter DayanMax Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics & University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Michael MendlBristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Affective stateBehaviorForagingRatRodent

Identifiers

PMID39391344
PMCPMC11461729

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.