↓ Skip to main content

Olfactory Discrimination Learning in an Outbred and an Inbred Strain of Mice

Overview of attention for article published in Chemical Senses, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Olfactory Discrimination Learning in an Outbred and an Inbred Strain of Mice
Published in
Chemical Senses, June 2015
DOI 10.1093/chemse/bjv032
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthias Laska

Abstract

The present study compared olfactory discrimination learning in CD-1 mice, a widely used outbred strain of mice with that of C57BL/6J mice, one of the most widely used inbred mouse strains. Using an automated olfactometer and a standard operant conditioning procedure, I found that CD-1 mice needed 60 trials to reach learning criterion in an initial 2-odor discrimination task. They improved in learning speed in subsequent discrimination tasks in which either the rewarded or the unrewarded stimulus was replaced for a new stimulus. C57BL/6J mice, in contrast, needed 120 trials to reach learning criterion in an initial 2-odor discrimination task and also needed significantly more trials than the CD-1 mice in 3 of the 4 subsequent discrimination tasks. Further, the results showed that discrimination learning performance of both mouse strains was largely unaffected by the odor stimuli used. The results of the present study demonstrate differences between an outbred and an inbred strain of mice with regard to odor discrimination learning, a classical measure of cognitive performance in comparative psychology. Thus, they emphasize the need to be careful with generalizing statements as to cognitive or sensory abilities of Mus musculus when inbred strains of mice are used.

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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 4%
Unknown 25 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 31%
Student > Master 4 15%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 7 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 38%
Environmental Science 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Neuroscience 2 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 7 27%
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 14 December 2015.
All research outputs
#18,432,465
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Chemical Senses
#982
of 1,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,249
of 263,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chemical Senses
#10
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,130 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.4. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 263,366 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.