Back

Paw Preference in Rats Across Tests, Strains, Sex, and Age: A PRISMA-Compliant Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Pokharel, D.; Swain, C. C.; Beligala, D. H.; Reddy, M. V. S. R. R.; Subramanian, T.

2026-02-10 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.02.08.704684 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Paw preference in rats is widely used to study hemispheric lateralization, but many individual studies are underpowered and employ inconsistent methods, leading to conflicting reports of population-level bias. We conducted a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether rats consistently display paw preference at the individual and population levels, and to evaluate the influence of behavioral test type, strain, sex, and age. Studies published between 1930 and 2025 were identified through PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect. Data were extracted on strain, age, sex, behavioral paradigm, and paw-preference classification. Random-effects models were used to estimate pooled prevalence, with subgroup analyses for key variables. Forty studies (n = 1,609 rats) met inclusion criteria. At the individual level, 84% of rats displayed consistent paw preference (95% CI: 78-89%, p < 0.0001), demonstrating robust individual-level lateralization. However, population-level analyses showed no universal directional bias, right paw use occurred in 48% of rats (95% CI: 43-54%) and left paw use in 39% (95% CI: 34-44%). Ambidextrous classification thresholds were standardized across studies to ensure comparability. Subgroup analyses indicated modest strain- and test-dependent effects, with Sprague Dawley rats tending toward balanced paw use, while other strains showed slight rightward bias. Skilled-reaching tasks produced slightly stronger asymmetry than the Collins test. Sex- and age-related differences were subtle and inconsistent. Overall, rats exhibit reliable individual-level paw preference without species-wide directional asymmetry, distinguishing them from humans. Standardized testing protocols and balanced cohort designs will enhance reproducibility and translational relevance in lateralization research.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
34.0%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 3%
12.9%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 17%
10.7%
50% of probability mass above
4
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 11%
7.0%
5
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.7%
6
Brain Structure and Function
83 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
7
European Journal of Neuroscience
168 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
8
Journal of Neurophysiology
263 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
9
Biology of Sex Differences
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
10
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.5%
11
The Cerebellum
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.4%
12
Molecular Autism
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
13
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
14
Behavioural Brain Research
70 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.0%
15
Genes, Brain and Behavior
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
16
Experimental Neurology
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
17
Journal of Visualized Experiments
30 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
18
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 45%
0.7%
19
The Journal of Neuroscience
928 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.7%
20
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
21
Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism
43 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
22
Brain Communications
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
23
Brain and Behavior
37 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
24
Journal of Comparative Neurology
66 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.5%
25
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.5%
26
Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience
18 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.5%
27
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.5%
28
British Journal of Pharmacology
34 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%