↓ Skip to main content

Rats’ acquisition of the ephemeral reward task

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Rats’ acquisition of the ephemeral reward task
Published in
Animal Cognition, December 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10071-016-1065-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas R. Zentall, Jacob P. Case, Jonathon R. Berry

Abstract

The ephemeral reward task provides a subject with a choice between two alternatives A and B. If it chooses alternative A, reinforcement follows and the trial is over. If it chooses alternative B, reinforcement follows but the subject can also respond to alternative A which is followed by a second reinforcement. Thus, it would be optimal to choose alternative B. Surprisingly, Salwiczek et al. (PLoS One 7:e49068, 2012. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.00490682012 ) reported that adult fish (cleaner wrasse) mastered this task within 100 trials, whereas monkeys and apes had great difficulty with it. The authors attributed the species differences to ecological differences in the species foraging experiences. However, Pepperberg and Hartsfield (J Comp Psychol 128:298-306, 2014) found that parrots too learned this task easily. We have found that with a similar task pigeons are not able to learn to choose optimally within 400 trials (Zentall et al. in J Comp Psychol 130:138-144, 2016). In Experiment 1 of the present study, we found that rats did not learn to choose optimally in 840 trials; however, in Experiment 2 we added a prior commitment to the initial choice by increasing delay to reinforcement for the choice response from a single lever press to the first lever press after 20 s (FI20 s). In a comparable amount of training to Experiment 1, the rats learned to choose optimally. Although the use of a prior commitment increases the delay to reinforcement, it appears to reduce impulsive responding which in turn leads to optimal choice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Austria 1 4%
Unknown 25 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 22%
Student > Master 5 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 30%
Psychology 8 30%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 April 2017.
All research outputs
#15,404,272
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,228
of 1,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,950
of 394,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#16
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,459 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.4. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 394,928 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.