↓ Skip to main content

Rats’ midsession reversal performance: the nature of the response

Overview of attention for article published in Learning & Behavior, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Rats’ midsession reversal performance: the nature of the response
Published in
Learning & Behavior, July 2015
DOI 10.3758/s13420-015-0189-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aaron P. Smith, Kristina F. Pattison, Thomas R. Zentall

Abstract

The midsession reversal task involves a simple simultaneous discrimination that predictably reverses midway through a session. Under various conditions, pigeons generally both anticipate the reversal and perseverate once it has occurred, whereas rats tend to make very few of either kind of error. In the present research, we investigated the hypothesis that the difference in performance between rats and pigeons is related to the nature of the responses made. We hypothesized that rats could have been better at bridging the intertrial interval by keeping the relevant paw close to the lever while eating, whereas the pigeons had to remove their beak from the response key and insert it into the feeder, thus making it difficult to mediate the response last made. In the present experiment, in successive phases, rats were trained to leverpress or nose-poke on a 40-trial midsession reversal, an 80-trial midsession reversal, and a variable-location reversal. The results showed that the leverpress group acquired the task faster than the nose-poke group, but that both groups reached comparable levels of performance. Thus, the difference in the natures of the responses cannot fully account for the differences in accuracy between rats and pigeons. Additionally, differences in the types of errors made by the two groups suggest that the nature of the response plays different roles in the performance of this task.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 4%
Austria 1 4%
Unknown 26 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 11 39%
Student > Master 7 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 11 39%
Psychology 7 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 1 4%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 September 2016.
All research outputs
#16,721,208
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Learning & Behavior
#364
of 904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,910
of 275,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Learning & Behavior
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
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 275,162 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.