ArticleRoyal Society open science2017
Flexible motor adjustment of pecking with an artificially extended bill in crows but not in pigeons.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visual guidance fine-tunes probing movements of an insect appendage.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Object manipulation without hands.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Individual behavioral type captured by a Bayesian model comparison of cap making by sponge crabs.PeerJ · 2020Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The dextrous foraging skills of primates, including humans, are underpinned by flexible vision-guided control of the arms/hands and even tools as body-part extensions. This capacity involves a visuomotor conversion process that transfers the locations of the hands/arms and a target in retinal coordinates into body coordinates to generate a reaching/grasping movement and to correct online. Similar capacities have evolved in birds, such as tool use in corvids and finches, which represents the flexible motor control of extended body parts. However, the flexibility of avian head-reaching and bill-grasping with body-part extensions remains poorly understood. This study comparatively investigated the flexibility of pecking with an artificially extended bill in crows and pigeons. Pecking performance and kinematics were examined when the bill extension was attached, and after its removal. The bill extension deteriorated pecking in pigeons in both performance and kinematics over 10 days. After the bill removal, pigeons started bill-grasping earlier, indicating motor adaptation to the bill extension. Contrastingly, pecking in crows was deteriorated transiently with the bill extension, but was recovered by adjusting pecking at closer distances, suggesting a quick adjustment to the bill extension. These results indicate flexible visuomotor control to extended body parts in crows but not in pigeons.
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.