ReviewLearning & behavior2026
Are mice a bad model for successive negative contrast?
Review in Learning & behavior, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Successive negative contrast (SNC) is a procedure in which animals trained with a large reward consume less of a subsequent smaller reward than animals always trained with the small reward. Studies of SNC in rats have emerged as an important tool in understanding the affective neuroscience of unexpected loss. Establishing a similar procedure in a murine model would allow access to a greater toolbox of neuroscience techniques (e.g., optogenetics, transgenics) that are more readily available in mice than rats. While the rat SNC literature has been thriving for decades, only a few studies report SNC effects in mice. This paper critically reviews the current literature on SNC in mice and presents a failure to replicate SNC using procedures commonly used in rats. Overall, the limited evidence available in mice and a lack of consistent findings suggest that mice may not be the most suitable model for studying the neurobiology of frustration, particularly when compared to the more established rat model.
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.