ArticleJournal of fish biology2025
Habituation with apparatus and group testing improves assessment of fish preferences.
Article 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Habituation with apparatus and group testing improves assessment of fish preferences.Journal of fish biology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Preference tests are commonly used to assess fish behavior and cognition in several research fields. This study aimed to investigate how fish perform in a preference test involving extended habituation to the apparatus, which was expected to reduce stress. We contrasted the choice between a sector of the apparatus with natural vegetation, expected to be the preferred stimulus, and a barren sector. Initially, we demonstrated that guppies' preference for the sector with vegetation increased after a 5-day habituation period (Experiment 1). Subsequent experiments systematically modified the testing paradigm to observe effects on the preference. Experiment 2 introduced a physical separation between sectors to facilitate discrete choices, Experiment 3 tested groups of fish, and Experiment 4 used wild guppies. Only the modification in Experiment 3 impacted preference scores: guppies tested in groups showed a higher preference for the vegetation stimulus and spent less time in the central, no-choice sector of the testing apparatus. Overall, this study supports the importance of methodological details in preference tests and highlights the benefits of extended habituation and group testing. Researchers should consider these factors when designing experiments to evaluate cognitive abilities or behavioral preferences in fish. Tailoring testing paradigms to specific research goals can improve the reliability and comparability of results, contributing to a deeper understanding of fish behavior and welfare.
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.