ArticleScientific reports2019
The role of item size on choosing contrasted food quantities in angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare).
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Variability in cognitive strategies in a numerical discrimination task: individual and comparative insights from day-old domestic chicks (Gallus gallus).Journal of animal science · 2025Article
- Quantity as a Fish Views It: Behavior and Neurobiology.Frontiers in neuroanatomy · 2022Review
- The Sense of Number in Fish, with Particular Reference to Its Neurobiological Bases.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Review
- Giraffes go for more: a quantity discrimination study in giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis).Animal cognition · 2021Article
- Continuous versus discrete quantity discrimination in dune snail (Mollusca: Gastropoda) seeking thermal refuges.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Food density and preferred quantity: discrimination of small and large numbers in angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare).Animal cognition · 2020Article
- Food Quantity Discrimination in Angelfish (Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Comparative studies on quantity discrimination in animals are important for understanding potential evolutionary roots of numerical competence. A previous study with angelfish has shown that they discriminate numerically different sets of same-sized food items and prefer the larger set. However, variables that covary with number were not controlled and choice could have been influenced by variables such as size or density of the food items rather than numerical attributes. Here using a recently developed approach, we examined whether contour length of the food items affects choice in a spontaneous binary choice task. In Experiment 1, a contrast of 1 vs. 1 food item was presented, but the ratio between the size (diameter) of the food items was varied. In Experiment 2, numerically different food sets were equated in overall size by increasing the size (diameter) of the items in the numerically small sets. In both Experiments, subjects showed a preference for the larger sized food items with a discrimination limit. These results show that item size plays a prominent role in foraging decisions in angelfish. Experiment 3 placed numerical and size attributes of the sets in conflict by presenting one larger-sized food item in the numerically smaller set that also had smaller overall size (diameter) of food items. Angelfish showed no preference in any of the contrasts, suggesting that they could not make optimal foraging decisions when these attributes were in conflict. Maximization of energy return is central to optimal foraging. Accordingly, here item size was also found to be a key feature of the sets, although the numerical attributes of the sets also influenced the choice.
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.