Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41922165›Full record

ArticleeNeuro2026

Different Behavioral Measures of Conditioned Magazine Activity Can Tell Different Stories about Brain Function.

Stephen G Volz, Gabriel Loewinger, Inmaculada Marquez, Salvatore Fevola, Mihwa Kang, Ingrid Reverte, Anjali Krishnan, Matthew P H Gardner, Mihaela D Iordanova, Guillem R Esber

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

10 authors.

Stephen G VolzDepartment of Psychology, Brooklyn College, City University of New York, Brooklyn, New York 11210.
Gabriel LoewingerMachine Learning Team, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.
Inmaculada MarquezDepartment of Psychology, La Ciénega University Center, University of Guadalajara, Ocotlán, Jalisco 47810, Mexico.
Salvatore FevolaDepartment of Psychology, Brooklyn College, City University of New York, Brooklyn, New York 11210.
Mihwa KangDepartment of Psychology, Brooklyn College, City University of New York, Brooklyn, New York 11210.ORCID 0000-0002-2341-5976
Ingrid ReverteDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome 00185, Italy.
Anjali KrishnanDepartment of Psychology, Brooklyn College, City University of New York, Brooklyn, New York 11210.
Matthew P H GardnerDepartment of Psychology, CSBN/GRNC, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec H4B 1R6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9146-5043
Mihaela D IordanovaDepartment of Psychology, CSBN/GRNC, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec H4B 1R6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6232-448X
Guillem R EsberDepartment of Psychology, CSBN/GRNC, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec H4B 1R6, Canada williamguillem.esber@concordia.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-8874-4255

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Behavior, AnimalBrainConditioning, ClassicalDiscrimination LearningRewardAnimalsCuesFemaleMalePrincipal Component AnalysisRats, Long-Evansconditioned magazine approachcue–reward learningneural bases of reward learningpavlovian appetitive conditioningprincipal component analysisreplicability

Identifiers

PMID41922165
PMCPMC13102402

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.