Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32116895›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2020

Searching for the Critical

Maria Elena Miletto Petrazzini, Alessandra Pecunioso, Marco Dadda, Christian Agrillo

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Maria Elena Miletto PetrazziniSchool of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Alessandra PecuniosoDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Marco DaddaDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Christian AgrilloDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
University of Padua · ITQueen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 1985, Macphail argued that there are no differences among the intellects of non-human vertebrates and that humans display unique cognitive skills because of language. Mathematical abilities represent one of the most sophisticated cognitive skills. While it is unquestionable that humans exhibit impressive mathematical skills associated with language, a large body of experimental evidence suggests that Macphail hypothesis must be refined in this field. In particular, the evidence that also small-brained organisms, such as fish, are capable of processing numerical information challenges the idea that humans display unique cognitive skills. Like humans, fish may take advantage of using continuous quantities (such as the area occupied by the objects) as proxy of number to select the larger/smaller group. Fish and humans also showed interesting similarities in the strategy adopted to learn a numerical rule. Collective intelligence in numerical estimation has been also observed in humans and guppies. However, numerical acuity in humans is considerably higher than that reported in any fish species investigated, suggesting that quantitative but not qualitative differences do exist between humans and fish. Lastly, while it is clear that contextual factors play an important role in the performance of numerical tasks, inter-species variability can be found also when different fish species were tested in comparable conditions, a fact that does not align with the null hypothesis of vertebrate intelligence. Taken together, we believe that the recent evidence of numerical abilities in fish call for a deeper reflection of Macphail's hypothesis.

Indexed as

approximate number systemcountingfishinter-species differencesnon-symbolic numerical abilities

Identifiers

PMID32116895
PMCPMC7025564
OpenAlexW3004036469

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.