Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40957556›Full record

ReviewBiology letters2025

Changing priorities about protective shelters: a review of a key method to investigate possible pain in crustaceans.

Robert William Elwood

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biology letters, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Robert William ElwoodSchool of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast BT9 5DL, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6932-8691

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Testing if non-human taxa experience pain is difficult because we need to exclude the possibility that responses are nociceptive reflexes. One approach is to identify an essential, high priority, resource and then ask if the animal will abandon and subsequently avoid that resource if it is paired with a noxious stimulus. This approach has been used with crustaceans that hide in dark shelters and electric shocks have been used as noxious stimuli. A range of species show escape responses and avoid shelters if the shock is presented within, and these responses increase with increasing voltage or repetition of shocks. Crustaceans also switch to using alternative shelters and appear to dramatically alter their behavioural priorities. Animals shocked outside of a shelter, however, subsequently increase their use of shelters and benefit from reduced predation. These changes in priorities cannot be due only to nociceptive reflexes because they persist long after the cessation of the stimulus. Increasing the apparent costs of leaving a shelter decreases the probability of leaving, indicating that, by taking into account costs, they are responding via behavioural decisions and not reflexes. This provides a method to determine how much the animal will pay to avoid the shocks and similar techniques should provide powerful ways to examine potential pain in different taxa.

Indexed as

CrustaceaPainAnimalsBehavior, AnimalElectroshockEscape ReactionNociceptiondecapodspainprioritiesshelterstrade-off

Identifiers

PMID40957556
PMCPMC12440613

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.