ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2016
Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) treat small and large numbers of items similarly during a relative quantity judgment task.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- PriMath-The Role of Intrinsic Factors in Quantitative Cognitive Performance of Highly Social Primates.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Giraffes go for more: a quantity discrimination study in giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis).Animal cognition · 2021Article
- Wolves and Dogs May Rely on Non-numerical Cues in Quantity Discrimination Tasks When Given the Choice.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Canine sense of quantity: evidence for numerical ratio-dependent activation in parietotemporal cortex.Biology letters · 2019Article
- Self-control assessments of capuchin monkeys with the rotating tray task and the accumulation task.Behavioural processes · 2016Article
- Article
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
A key issue in understanding the evolutionary and developmental emergence of numerical cognition is to learn what mechanism(s) support perception and representation of quantitative information. Two such systems have been proposed, one for dealing with approximate representation of sets of items across an extended numerical range and another for highly precise representation of only small numbers of items. Evidence for the first system is abundant across species and in many tests with human adults and children, whereas the second system is primarily evident in research with children and in some tests with non-human animals. A recent paper (Choo & Franconeri, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 93-99, 2014) with adult humans also reported "superprecise" representation of small sets of items in comparison to large sets of items, which would provide more support for the presence of a second system in human adults. We first presented capuchin monkeys with a test similar to that of Choo and Franconeri in which small or large sets with the same ratios had to be discriminated. We then presented the same monkeys with an expanded range of comparisons in the small number range (all comparisons of 1-9 items) and the large number range (all comparisons of 10-90 items in 10-item increments). Capuchin monkeys showed no increased precision for small over large sets in making these discriminations in either experiment. These data indicate a difference in the performance of monkeys to that of adult humans, and specifically that monkeys do not show improved discrimination performance for small sets relative to large sets when the relative numerical differences are held constant.
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.