ArticlePrimates; journal of primatology2016
Eye preferences in capuchin monkeys (Sapajus apella).
Article in Primates; journal of primatology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study explored whether capuchin monkey eye preferences differ systematically in response to stimuli of positive and negative valence. The 'valence hypothesis' proposes that the right hemisphere is more dominant for negative emotional processing and the left hemisphere is more dominant for positive emotional processing. Visual information from each eye is thought to be transferred faster to and primarily processed by the contralateral cerebral hemisphere. Therefore, it was predicted capuchin monkeys would show greater left eye use for looking at negative stimuli and greater right eye use for looking at positive stimuli. Eleven captive capuchin monkeys were presented with four images of different emotional valence (an egg and capuchin monkey raised eyebrow face were categorised as positive, and a harpy eagle face and capuchin monkey threat face were categorised as negative) and social relevance (consisting of capuchin monkey faces or not), and eye preferences for viewing the stimuli through a monocular viewing hole were recorded. While strong preferences for using either the left or right eye were found for most individuals, there was no consensus at the population level. Furthermore, the direction of looking, number of looks and duration of looks did not differ significantly with the emotional valence of the stimuli. These results are inconsistent with the main hypotheses about the relationship between eye preferences and processing of emotional stimuli. However, the monkeys did show significantly more arousal behaviours (vocalisation, door-touching, self-scratching and hand-rubbing) when viewing the negatively valenced stimuli than the positively valenced stimuli, indicating that the stimuli were emotionally salient. These findings do not provide evidence for a relationship between eye preferences and functional hemispheric specialisations, as often proposed in humans. Additional comparative studies are required to better understand the phylogeny of lateral biases, particularly in relation to emotional valence.
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.