ArticleAnimal cognition2014
Female meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus, respond differently to the scent marks of multiple male conspecifics.
Article in Animal cognition, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Odor Communication and Mate Choice in Rodents.Biology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many nonhuman animals are capable of discriminating a group or entity containing more objects from one containing less of the same objects. The capacity for making judgments of numerousness may also allow individuals to discriminate between potential mates. Female meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) may use judgments of relative numerousness to distinguish between potential suitors by selecting males that signal their interest by depositing more scent marks relative to other males. We used a familiarization-discrimination paradigm in the absence of training to test the hypothesis that female voles will discriminate between the different numerosities of scent marks of two male conspecifics that are similar in features of their phenotype and quality. During the exposure phase, we presented female voles with different ratios of feces scent marks from two males. During the test phase, we presented females with a single, fresh fecal scent mark from each of the two male donors, whose marks they had previously encountered during the exposure phase. In both phases, females spent more time investigating the scent mark(s) of the male that deposited more scent marks than that of the male that deposited fewer scent marks provided the difference in the ratio of scent marks provided by the male donors in the exposure phase was ≥2. Our results are consistent with studies on a variety of taxa, suggesting that numerosity discriminations are evolutionarily ancient and spontaneously available to nonhuman animals and humans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.