Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27527223›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2016

Quantity Discrimination in Domestic Rats, Rattus norvegicus.

Laura Cox, V Tamara Montrose

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Towards numerical cognition's origin: insights from day-old domestic chicks.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017
    Review
  7. Response to intruder number is related to spontaneous quantity discrimination performance in a wild bird.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology
    Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Laura CoxAnimal Behavior and Welfare Research Group, Department of Animal and Land Sciences, Hartpury University Centre, Hartpury, Gloucestershire GL19 3BE, UK. Laura.Cox@Hartpury.ac.uk.
V Tamara MontroseAnimal Behavior and Welfare Research Group, Department of Animal and Land Sciences, Hartpury University Centre, Hartpury, Gloucestershire GL19 3BE, UK. Tamara.Montrose@Hartpury.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantity discrimination is a basic form of numerical competence where an animal distinguishes which of two amounts is greater in size. Whilst quantity discrimination in rats has been investigated via training paradigms, rats' natural quantity discrimination abilities without explicit training for a desired response have not been explored. This study investigated domestic rats' ability to perform quantity discrimination. Domestic rats ( n = 12) were examined for their ability to distinguish the larger amount under nine quantity comparisons. One-sample t -tests identified a significant preference for the larger quantity in comparisons of 1 vs. 2, 2 vs. 3, 3 vs. 5, 3 vs. 8, 4 vs. 6, and 4 vs. 8. No preference between quantities was found for comparisons of 3 vs. 4, 4 vs. 5 and 5 vs. 6. Overall, this study drew two key conclusions. Firstly, that domestic rats are capable of performing quantity discrimination without extensive training. Secondly, as subjects adhered to Weber's law, it was concluded that the approximate number system underpins domestic rats' ability to perform spontaneous quantity discrimination.

Indexed as

numerical discriminationquantity discriminationratrodent cognition

Identifiers

PMID27527223
PMCPMC4997271

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.