ArticleFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2025
Olfaction-based learned preference assessment without the use of motivational fear or motivational weight loss.
Article in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Reliable assessments of learning ability in preclinical models are essential for studying neurodegenerative, developmental, and inflammatory disorders. However, many inbred strains of mice present background pathologies that interfere with traditional learning tests. The C57BL/6 J mouse, a widely used laboratory strain, sporadically develops auditory and visual impairments that complicate interpretation. In this study, we establish an olfaction-based learned preference protocol designed to evaluate learning ability independent of fear responses, motivational weight loss, or visual cues in C57BL/6 J mice. Methods and results: Leveraging the species' natural preference for sweet flavors, we tested different sweeteners and confirmed their passive preference for sucrose was more robust than for saccharin or sucralose. We then trained mice to associate either lemon or rose scents with a sucrose paste reward, and tested whether they demonstrated a learned preference for the sucrose-associated scent over the neutral scent. Mice developed an appetitive olfactory preference for sucrose as a reward, in the absence of motivational weight loss, as measured by time spent exploring a three-chamber association box with access to both scents. We assessed whether this protocol discriminated learning deficit induced by lipopolysaccharide (LPS) administration. Conclusion: We conclude that this protocol is a viable tool for assessing learning abilities in preclinical models with auditory or visual deficits, motor impairments, or an inability to tolerate motivational weight loss.
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.