ArticleBrain and neuroscience advances
Most rats prefer gambling opportunities featuring win-paired cues that drive risky choice: Synergistic interactions between choice of and choice during the cued rat gambling task.
Article in Brain and neuroscience advances. 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.
- When cues take the wheel: cue-control across alcohol use disorder, binge-eating disorder, gambling disorder, and internet gaming disorder.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
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
Win-paired cues drive maladaptive decision-making in laboratory-based gambling tasks. However, humans prefer these cued games that facilitate gambling addiction. Whether rats prefer tasks that employ win-paired cues is unknown, yet this has consequences for the validity of using rodent models to investigate problem gambling. Here, we allowed rats to choose on a trial-by-trial basis whether to work for cued or uncued rewards on the rat gambling task. We also performed computational modelling to investigate individual differences in decision-making strategies. Rats could be grouped based on preference for task type, which became more pronounced across training, or preference for risky options, as is standard for the rat gambling task. Risk-preferring rats increasingly preferred the cued task over time. Decision-making was marginally riskier on cued trials, particularly in risk-preferring rats, but this was independent of task preference. Pairing of rewards with audiovisual cues accelerated response times and enhanced impulsivity in both cue- and risk-preferring rats. Cued wins also resulted in greater post-reinforcement pauses in risk-preferring animals only. Diffusion model analyses revealed optimal decision-makers have longer non-decision times before risky or impulsive choices, yet this is absent in risk-preferring animals. As such, lapses in cognitive control could be responsible for maladaptive trial outcomes in optimal, but not risk-preferring, rats. Collectively, these data support the use of high-risk preference at baseline as a proxy for vulnerability to problem gambling. Furthermore, diverse computational mechanisms could be responsible for the negative impact of win-paired cues on gambling-like behaviour in at-risk versus resilient individuals.
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.