Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29234898›Full record

ReviewAnimal cognition2018

The detour paradigm in animal cognition.

Can Kabadayi, Katarzyna Bobrowicz, Mathias Osvath

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animal cognition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Inhibitory control tests in non-human animals: validity, reliability, and perspectives.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Can KabadayiDepartment of Cognitive Science, Lund University, Helgonavägen 3, 22100, Lund, Sweden. can.kabadayi@lucs.lu.se.ORCID 0000-0002-5707-3089
Katarzyna BobrowiczDepartment of Cognitive Science, Lund University, Helgonavägen 3, 22100, Lund, Sweden.
Mathias OsvathDepartment of Cognitive Science, Lund University, Helgonavägen 3, 22100, Lund, Sweden.

Funding

Vetenskapsrådet 2012-1235Vetenskapsrådet 2014-6402
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper, we review one of the oldest paradigms used in animal cognition: the detour paradigm. The paradigm presents the subject with a situation where a direct route to the goal is blocked and a detour must be made to reach it. Often being an ecologically valid and a versatile tool, the detour paradigm has been used to study diverse cognitive skills like insight, social learning, inhibitory control and route planning. Due to the relative ease of administrating detour tasks, the paradigm has lately been used in large-scale comparative studies in order to investigate the evolution of inhibitory control. Here we review the detour paradigm and some of its cognitive requirements, we identify various ecological and contextual factors that might affect detour performance, we also discuss developmental and neurological underpinnings of detour behaviors, and we suggest some methodological approaches to make species comparisons more robust.

Indexed as

CognitionProblem SolvingAnimalsBehavior, AnimalLearningPsychology, ComparativeSpatial BehaviorComparative psychologyDetour behaviorInhibitory controlRoute planning

Identifiers

PMID29234898
PMCPMC5756264

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.