ArticleAnimal cognition2024
Rats' performance in a suboptimal choice procedure implemented in a natural-foraging analogue.
Article in Animal cognition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Rats and pigeons have shown striking differences in their behavior in the suboptimal choice procedure: while pigeons show a strong and consistent preference for the discriminative alternative, most studies performed with rats have found optimal preferences, and in the cases in which suboptimal preferences have been reported, those results have not been replicated. Currently, there is no consensus about the reasons for these discrepant results between species, but different explanations have been proposed either with an empirical base or exclusively in theoretical terms. In the latter category it has been proposed that the discrepancy might have arisen because of differences in the relationship between the natural foraging response of each species, and the response required in the laboratory. For analyzing this possibility, we conducted two experiments carried out within a maze that was specifically designed to allow rats to display behaviors related to their natural foraging. In experiment 1, we explored rats' preferences when facing a discriminative alternative with probability of reinforcement (p) = 0.5, and a non-discriminative alternative with p = .75. In experiment 2, we evaluated preferences when the discriminative alternative had p = .20 and the non-discriminative had p = .50, rats were evaluated in a closed economy, with longer terminal links, and were allowed to escape from the outcome found. In both studies, rats showed a strong preference for the non-discriminative alternative and showed very high levels of discrimination between the positive and the negative outcomes of the discriminative alternative.
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.