ArticleAnimal cognition2020
Food density and preferred quantity: discrimination of small and large numbers in angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare).
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 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.
- Video playback versus live stimuli to assess quantity discrimination in angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare).Behavior research methods · 2022Article
- The Sense of Number in Fish, with Particular Reference to Its Neurobiological Bases.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Review
- Rhesus Monkeys Have a Counting Ability and Can Count from One to Six.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- 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 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many animal species share the ability to discriminate between sets with different quantity of food items. In fish, this ability has rarely been investigated, although findings have been obtained do indicate a preference, as in other animals, for sets with large over small quantities. The role played by food item size has also been found to be important in the discrimination. However, another potentially important non-numerical variable, food density, has not been investigated. In this study, we examined the influence of density (inter-item distance) in the decision-making process of food discrimination in angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare). In a binary choice task, we kept the number and size of food items constant, but contrasted a set containing food items spaced further apart (sparse set) to another set with food items spaced more closely (dense set). We conducted this analysis with sets in the small (3 vs 3 food items) and in the large number range (5 vs 5 food items) and also varied the specific spatial arrangements of the food items in the sets. Contrary to expectations, angelfish showed a preference for the sparse sets over the dense sets in the five vs five contrasts irrespective of the specific spatial arrangement, but exhibited no preference in case of the three vs three contrasts. Subsequently, we slightly lengthened the inter-item distance in the dense sets, and found preference for the dense over the sparse sets. Last, we further examined the potential effect of spatial configuration of the items in the sets, but found no effect of this latter factor. Overall, these results indicate that higher density of the contrasted food item sets significantly influences choice in angelfish, which prefer denser sets if a clear discriminability of each individual item within the sets is provided.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32009216What 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.