Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32369562›Full record

ArticleIntegrative and comparative biology2020

Bumblebees Use Sequential Scanning of Countable Items in Visual Patterns to Solve Numerosity Tasks.

HaDi MaBouDi, H Samadi Galpayage Dona, Elia Gatto, Olli J Loukola, Emma Buckley, Panayiotis D Onoufriou, Peter Skorupski, Lars Chittka

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Integrative and comparative biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. An insect brain organizes numbers on a left-to-right mental number line.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Illusional Perspective across Humans and Bees.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

HaDi MaBouDiSchool of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 4NS, UK.
H Samadi Galpayage DonaSchool of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 4NS, UK.
Elia GattoDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padova, 35131 Padova, Italy.
Olli J LoukolaSchool of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 4NS, UK.
Emma BuckleySchool of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 4NS, UK.
Panayiotis D OnoufriouSchool of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 4NS, UK.
Peter SkorupskiInstitute of Medical and Biomedical Education, St George's, University of London, London SW17 0RE, UK.
Lars ChittkaSchool of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 4NS, UK.
Queen Mary University of London · GBSt George's, University of London · GBUniversity of Padua · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most research in comparative cognition focuses on measuring if animals manage certain tasks; fewer studies explore how animals might solve them. We investigated bumblebees' scanning strategies in a numerosity task, distinguishing patterns with two items from four and one from three, and subsequently transferring numerical information to novel numbers, shapes, and colors. Video analyses of flight paths indicate that bees do not determine the number of items by using a rapid assessment of number (as mammals do in "subitizing"); instead, they rely on sequential enumeration even when items are presented simultaneously and in small quantities. This process, equivalent to the motor tagging ("pointing") found for large number tasks in some primates, results in longer scanning times for patterns containing larger numbers of items. Bees used a highly accurate working memory, remembering which items have already been scanned, resulting in fewer than 1% of re-inspections of items before making a decision. Our results indicate that the small brain of bees, with less parallel processing capacity than mammals, might constrain them to use sequential pattern evaluation even for low quantities.

Indexed as

CognitionCuesAnimalsBeesFemale

Identifiers

PMID32369562
PMCPMC7750931
OpenAlexW3022625596

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.