Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40587031›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2025

Resolving anxiety-like behaviour inconsistencies in the elevated plus maze by tracking exploration depth and timing.

Matthew D Zelko, Stephen R Robinson, Elisa L Hill-Yardin, Helen Nasser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Protective Effects ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Matthew D ZelkoSchool of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC, 3083, Australia. mattdzelko@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2023-6489
Stephen R RobinsonSchool of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC, 3083, Australia.
Elisa L Hill-YardinSchool of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC, 3083, Australia.
Helen NasserSchool of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, 3083, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The anxiety-like behaviour provoked by the elevated plus maze is primarily measured by the degree to which a rodent explores or avoids the risker, unenclosed arms. Measures such as arm entries and total time spent within the arm are conventionally used, but their analysis often produces inconsistent inferences about the level of anxiety-like behaviour being observed. This inconsistency occurs because the measures do not correlate with one another, raising the question of how validly they capture both the exploratory and avoidance motivations that typify anxiety-like behaviour. Given this inconsistency, we propose a new measure, Novel Exploration Growth, that captures avoidance and exploratory behaviours within the maze. The growth of novel exploration tracks the first visit to discrete areas of the maze over time. The absolute amount of novel exploration, combined with the phasic nature of the exploration, reveals behavioural phenotypes with both avoidance and exploration quantified in a single time series. By addressing both motivations evoked by the maze through a single coherent measure, we provide a superior estimation of anxiety-like behaviour and resolve inconsistencies that arise when applying conventional measures alone.

Indexed as

AnxietyBehavior, AnimalElevated Plus Maze TestExploratory BehaviorMaze LearningAnimalsAvoidance LearningMaleMotivationRatsAnxiety-like behaviourAvoidanceElevated plus mazeExplorationNovel exploration growth

Identifiers

PMID40587031
PMCPMC12209025

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.