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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The olfactory hole-board test in rats: a new paradigm to study aversion and preferences to odors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00223 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kerstin E. A. Wernecke, Markus Fendt |
| Abstract |
Odors of biological relevance (e.g., predator odors, sex odors) are known to effectively influence basic survival needs of rodents such as anti-predatory defensiveness and mating behaviors. Research focused on the effects of these odors on rats' behavior mostly includes multi-trial paradigms where animals experience single odor exposures in subsequent, separated experimental sessions. In the present study, we introduce a modification of the olfactory hole-board test that allows studying the effects of different odors on rats' behavior within single trials. First, we demonstrated that the corner holes of the hole-board were preferentially visited by rats. The placement of different odors under the corner holes changed this hole preference. We showed that holes with carnivore urine samples were avoided, while corner holes with female rat urine samples were preferred. Furthermore, corner holes with urine samples from a carnivore, herbivore, and omnivore were differentially visited indicating that rats can discriminate these odors. To test whether anxiolytic treatment specifically modulates the avoidance of carnivore urine holes, we treated rats with buspirone. Buspirone treatment completely abolished the avoidance of carnivore urine holes. Taken together, our findings indicate that the olfactory hole-board test is a valuable tool for measuring avoidance and preference responses to biologically relevant odors. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 31 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 25% |
| Researcher | 7 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Professor | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 25% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 16% |
| Psychology | 3 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 7 | 22% |
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 26 August 2015.
All research outputs
#15,156,937
of 23,312,088 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#2,084
of 3,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,558
of 268,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#61
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,312,088 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 3,243 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 268,581 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.