ArticleeNeuro2026
Different Behavioral Measures of Conditioned Magazine Activity Can Tell Different Stories about Brain Function.
Article in eNeuro, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Elucidating the neural substrates of pavlovian reward learning requires reliable behavioral readouts. In conditioned magazine approach studies, rodents express reward expectancy by approaching the food magazine during cues that predict reward. This behavior is typically quantified using one of three measures: number of head entries, percentage of time in the magazine, or latency to respond. Yet these measures often diverge within the same discrimination task, making reliance on a single metric problematic. At the individual level, some animals express discrimination learning most clearly in one measure while showing little or no learning in the others, and animals may even switch their preferred measure across training. Reporting only one measure therefore risks underestimating the ability of a subset of animals. At the group level, sampling error can produce apparent differences across replications of the same design, limiting replicability. Moreover, brain manipulations can alter response topography, such that choosing one measure over another may lead to conflicting interpretations of neural function. To address this issue, we recommend reporting all raw behavioral measures and supplementing them with a dimensionality-reduction approach such as principal component analysis. Across multiple discrimination tasks in rats from both sexes, we show that subject-specific first principal component scores provide a composite index that more consistently reflects discrimination learning than any single raw measure. This approach enhances statistical power, improves reproducibility, and helps distinguish true learning deficits from changes in response topography. However, its broader application will require continued validation and careful consideration of its inherent methodological tradeoffs.
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.