ArticleJournal of behavioral addictions2026
Using light to establish habits in laboratory mice.
Article in Journal of behavioral addictions, 2026. 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.
- Animal models relevant to digital technology-based disorders.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: Perseverative behaviours are commonly assessed using operant paradigms in which rodents work for drugs or food under physiological deprivation, limiting translational relevance to some behavioural addictions. Here we validated an operant paradigm in which the acquired behaviour is driven neither by physiological needs nor novelty seeking. Methods: Mice were trained to lever-press for green light. Exp.1 used a within-subjects design to examine lever discrimination and whether responding could be "satiated" by light preexposure. Exp.2 examined the necessity of instrumental contingency using a between-subjects design, with light delivery equated between contingent and non-contingent groups. Exp.3 replaced green light with dim red light producing less retinal photoreceptor excitation but comparable heat to assess non-photic cues. Exp.4 examined whether green light could affect food seeking under different motivational states. Results: In Exp.1, green light supported lever discrimination. Among high responders, the satiation effect was modest (<15% reduction) and did not deter lever pressing. In Exp.2, instrumental contingency promoted response acquisition whereas random light delivery did not. In Exp.3, dim red light failed to sustain behaviour, producing ∼50% response decrement. In Exp.4, light potentiated food seeking under ad libitum feeding. Discussion and conclusions: Response-contingent light serves as a reward to establish operant responding, which cannot be explained by alerting effects or thermal cues. Our study bridges the gap between animal models and findings from humans that coloured light may exacerbate smartphone use and that light therapy may reshape reward circuits in individuals with Internet gaming disorder symptoms [Li et al. (2026) Advanced Science 13:e14044].
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.