ArticleAnimal behaviour2018
Intraspecific variation in cue-specific learning in sticklebacks.
Article in Animal behaviour, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Simple life, simple minds? How habitat simplification in aquatic ecosystems shape fish cognition.Animal cognition · 2026Review
- Testing weight-based conditional discrimination in Goffin's cockatoos, Cacatua goffiniana.PloS one · 2025Article
- Variation in inhibitory control does not influence social rank, foraging efficiency, or risk taking, in red junglefowl females.Animal cognition · 2022Article
- How Inhibitory Control Relates to Positive and Negative Affective States in Red Junglefowl.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
- Predictors of individual variation in reversal learning performance in three-spined sticklebacks.Animal cognition · 2020Article
- Do male sticklebacks use visual and/or olfactory cues to assess a potential mate's history with predation risk?Animal behaviour · 2018Article
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
Abstract
Animals must identify reliable cues amidst environmental noise during learning, and the cues that are most reliable often depend on the local ecology. Comparing the performance of populations of the same species across multiple versions of a cognitive task can reveal whether some populations learn to use certain cues faster than others. Here, using a criterion-based protocol, we assessed whether two natural populations of sticklebacks differed in how quickly they learned to associate two different discrimination cues with the location of food. One version of the discrimination task required animals to use visual (colour) cues while the other required animals to use egocentric (side) cues. There were significant behavioural differences between the two populations, but no evidence that one population was generally better at learning, or that one version of the task was generally harder than the other. However, the two populations excelled on different tasks: fish from one population performed significantly better on the side version than they did on the colour version, while the opposite was observed in the other population. These results suggest that the two populations are equally capable of discrimination learning, but are primed to form associations with different cues. Ecological differences between the populations in environmental stability might account for the observed variation in learning. These findings highlight the value of comparing cognitive performance on different variations of the same task in order to understand variation in cognitive mechanisms.
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.