Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32355252›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Baboons (Papio papio) Process a Context-Free but Not a Context-Sensitive Grammar.

Raphaëlle Malassis, Stanislas Dehaene, Joël Fagot

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Sensitivity to geometric shape regularity in humans and baboons: A putative signature of human singularity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Raphaëlle MalassisLaboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive, Université d'Aix-Marseille, Marseille, France. raphaelle.malassis@gmail.com.
Stanislas DehaeneCollège de France, Paris, France.
Joël FagotLaboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive, Université d'Aix-Marseille, Marseille, France.
Aix-Marseille Université · FRCognitive Neuroimaging Lab · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Language processing involves the ability to master supra-regular grammars, that go beyond the level of complexity of regular grammars. This ability has been hypothesized to be a uniquely human capacity. Our study probed baboons' capacity to learn two supra-regular grammars of different levels of complexity: a context-free grammar generating sequences following a mirror structure (e.g., AB | BA, ABC | CBA) and a context-sensitive grammar generating sequences following a repeat structure (e.g., AB | AB, ABC | ABC), the latter requiring greater computational power to be processed. Fourteen baboons were tested in a prediction task, requiring them to track a moving target on a touchscreen. In distinct experiments, sequences of target locations followed one of the above two grammars, with rare violations. Baboons showed slower response times when violations occurred in mirror sequences, but did not react to violations in repeat sequences, suggesting that they learned the context-free (mirror) but not the context-sensitive (repeat) grammar. By contrast, humans tested with the same task learned both grammars. These data suggest a difference in sensitivity in baboons between a context-free and a context-sensitive grammar.

Indexed as

AnimalsHumansLearningPapio papioPattern Recognition, Visual

Identifiers

PMID32355252
PMCPMC7193559
OpenAlexW3023799088

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.