Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32160191›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Decision-making flexibility in New Caledonian crows, young children and adult humans in a multi-dimensional tool-use task.

Rachael Miller, Romana Gruber, Anna Frohnwieser, Martina Schiestl, Sarah A Jelbert, Russell D Gray, Markus Boeckle, Alex H Taylor, Nicola S Clayton

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Editorial: Memories for the future.Frontiers in psychology · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. New Caledonian crows plan for specific future tool use.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2020
    Article
  7. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Rachael MillerDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2996-9571
Romana GruberSchool of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland Central, New Zealand.
Anna FrohnwieserDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5219-4319
Martina SchiestlSchool of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland Central, New Zealand.
Sarah A JelbertSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, United Kingdom.
Russell D GraySchool of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland Central, New Zealand.
Markus BoeckleDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, United Kingdom.
Alex H TaylorSchool of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland Central, New Zealand.
Nicola S ClaytonDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, United Kingdom.
University of Cambridge · GBMax Planck Society · DEUniversity of Auckland · NZUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to make profitable decisions in natural foraging contexts may be influenced by an additional requirement of tool-use, due to increased levels of relational complexity and additional work-effort imposed by tool-use, compared with simply choosing between an immediate and delayed food item. We examined the flexibility for making the most profitable decisions in a multi-dimensional tool-use task, involving different apparatuses, tools and rewards of varying quality, in 3-5-year-old children, adult humans and tool-making New Caledonian crows (Corvus moneduloides). We also compared our results to previous studies on habitually tool-making orangutans (Pongo abelii) and non-tool-making Goffin's cockatoos (Cacatua goffiniana). Adult humans, cockatoos and crows, but not children and orangutans, did not select a tool when it was not necessary, which was the more profitable choice in this situation. Adult humans, orangutans and cockatoos, but not crows and children, were able to refrain from selecting non-functional tools. By contrast, the birds, but not the primates tested, struggled to attend to multiple variables-where two apparatuses, two tools and two reward qualities were presented simultaneously-without extended experience. These findings indicate: (1) in a similar manner to humans and orangutans, New Caledonian crows and Goffin's cockatoos can flexibly make profitable decisions in some decision-making tool-use tasks, though the birds may struggle when tasks become more complex; (2) children and orangutans may have a bias to use tools in situations where adults and other tool-making species do not.

Indexed as

Decision MakingTask Performance and AnalysisTool Use BehaviorAdultAnimalsChild, PreschoolCockatoosCrowsFemaleHumansMalePongo

Identifiers

PMID32160191
PMCPMC7065838
OpenAlexW3010771155

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.