Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28596749›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2017

Measures of Dogs' Inhibitory Control Abilities Do Not Correlate across Tasks.

Désirée Brucks, Sarah Marshall-Pescini, Lisa Jessica Wallis, Ludwig Huber, Friederike Range

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Inhibitory control tests in non-human animals: validity, reliability, and perspectives.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
    Review
  8. Training Does Not Uniformly Increase Canine Self-Control.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Désirée BrucksComparative Cognition Unit, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, University of ViennaVienna, Austria.
Sarah Marshall-PesciniComparative Cognition Unit, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, University of ViennaVienna, Austria.
Lisa Jessica WallisComparative Cognition Unit, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, University of ViennaVienna, Austria.
Ludwig HuberComparative Cognition Unit, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, University of ViennaVienna, Austria.
Friederike RangeComparative Cognition Unit, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, University of ViennaVienna, Austria.

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 24840
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inhibitory control, the ability to overcome prepotent but ineffective behaviors, has been studied extensively across species, revealing the involvement of this ability in many different aspects of life. While various different paradigms have been created in order to measure inhibitory control, only a limited number of studies have investigated whether such measurements indeed evaluate the same underlying mechanism, especially in non-human animals. In humans, inhibitory control is a complex construct composed of distinct behavioral processes rather than of a single unified measure. In the current study, we aimed to investigate the validity of inhibitory control paradigms in dogs. Sixty-seven dogs were tested in a battery consisting of frequently used inhibitory control tests. Additionally, dog owners were asked to complete an impulsivity questionnaire about their dog. No correlation of dogs' performance across tasks was found. In order to understand whether there are some underlying behavioral aspects explaining dogs' performance across tests, we performed principle component analyses. Results revealed that three components (persistency, compulsivity and decision speed) explained the variation across tasks. The questionnaire and dogs' individual characteristics (i.e., age and sex) provided only limited information for the derived components. Overall, results suggest that no unique measurement for inhibitory control exists in dogs, but tests rather measure different aspects of this ability. Considering the context-specificity of inhibitory control in dogs and most probably also in other non-human animals, extreme caution is needed when making conclusions about inhibitory control abilities based on a single test.

Indexed as

delay of gratificationdogsinhibitory controlpersistencytest battery

Identifiers

PMID28596749
PMCPMC5443147

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.