Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31758353›Full record

ArticleAnimal cognition2020

Response learning confounds assays of inhibitory control on detour tasks.

Jayden O van Horik, Christine E Beardsworth, Philippa R Laker, Mark A Whiteside, Joah R Madden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal cognition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Inhibitory control tests in non-human animals: validity, reliability, and perspectives.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Long-term repeatability of cognitive performance.Royal Society open science · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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.

Jayden O van HorikWashington Singer Laboratories, Psychology, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, Centre for Research in Animal Behaviour, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QG, UK. jayden.van.horik@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8319-911X
Christine E BeardsworthWashington Singer Laboratories, Psychology, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, Centre for Research in Animal Behaviour, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QG, UK.
Philippa R LakerWashington Singer Laboratories, Psychology, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, Centre for Research in Animal Behaviour, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QG, UK.
Mark A WhitesideWashington Singer Laboratories, Psychology, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, Centre for Research in Animal Behaviour, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QG, UK.
Joah R MaddenWashington Singer Laboratories, Psychology, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, Centre for Research in Animal Behaviour, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QG, UK.

Funding

European Research Council 616474European Research Council () 616474
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to inhibit prepotent actions towards rewards that are made inaccessible by transparent barriers has been considered to reflect capacities for inhibitory control (IC). Typically, subjects initially reach directly, and incorrectly, for the reward. With experience, subjects may inhibit this action and instead detour around barriers to access the reward. However, assays of IC are often measured across multiple trials, with the location of the reward remaining constant. Consequently, other cognitive processes, such as response learning (acquisition of a motor routine), may confound accurate assays of IC. We measured baseline IC capacities in pheasant chicks, Phasianus colchicus, using a transparent cylinder task. Birds were then divided into two training treatments, where they learned to access a reward placed behind a transparent barrier, but experienced differential reinforcement of a particular motor response. In the stationary-barrier treatment, the location of the barrier remained constant across trials. We, therefore, reinforced a fixed motor response, such as always go left, which birds could learn to aid their performance. Conversely, we alternated the location of the barrier across trials for birds in the moving-barrier treatment and hence provided less reinforcement of their response learning. All birds then experienced a second presentation of the transparent cylinder task to assess whether differences in the training treatments influenced their subsequent capacities for IC. Birds in the stationary-barrier treatment showed a greater improvement in their subsequent IC performance after training compared to birds in the moving-barrier treatment. We, therefore, suggest that response learning aids IC performance on detour tasks. Consequently, non-target cognitive processes associated with different neural substrates appear to underlie performances on detour tasks, which may confound accurate assays of IC. Our findings question the construct validity of a commonly used paradigm that is widely considered to assess capacities for IC in humans and other animals.

Indexed as

LearningRewardAnimalsBirdsHumansCylinder taskDetour taskExecutive functionsMotor routine

Identifiers

PMID31758353
PMCPMC6981321

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.