Latency increases for correct responses can be consistent with specific attentional impairments. However, if there are also increases in the latency to collect reward, this clearly points to motivational and/or sensorimotor impairments. Reductions in the total number of trials may also point to motivational and/or sensorimotor effects, but this may also be a consequences of poor attentional performance (if the animals fails to detect the cue correctly and, therefore, responds incorrectly it doesn't receive reward, so that responses no longer get reinforced).

The review by Trevor Robbins (2002, Psychopharamacology) gives a good overview of the interpretation of different patterns of results on the 5CSRT test.

Thank you very much for your reply, Tobias!

I read several reviews, and most are not very specific in this regard; rather they tend to focus on sustained attention and inhibitory control assessment. 

When you said that a reduction in the total number of trials could also be a consequence of poor attentional performance, as to your argument, animals may be responding wrongly, but after all this nose-poke will be a further valid trial... It should not be seen a decrease in the number of trials (?).

Hello Fiona,

Omitted trials (mainly considered as an attentional variable, along with accuracy of response) can also be indicative of motivation, if taken in consideration with other variables (e.g. diminished latency to collect the reward). However, as Tobias suggests, the interpretation should be cautiously made as it can also reveal attentional/motor deficits. We cover some of those points in our review (Sanchez-Roige et al, 2012, Psychopharmacology) in mice.

Thank you very much, Sandra! I have read several times all your work, and I would like to take the opportunity to tell you how amazing they are.

Have a nice day!

That is very nice of you to say, Fiona! Please feel free to fire more questions if you would like to discuss any other specific topics about the 5choice.

Best of luck with your work!