ArticleRoyal Society open science2020
Multiple factors affect discrimination learning performance, but not between-individual variation, in wild mixed-species flocks of birds.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Repeatedly unreliable, and unreliably repeatable: the trials-to-criterion fallacy.Animal cognition · 2026Article
- Changes in cognitive performance following repeated exposure to a hand-touch learning task across breed clades of domestic dogs (Canis familiaris).Animal cognition · 2026Article
- How to solve novel problems: the role of associative learning in problem-solving performance in wild great tits Parus major.Animal cognition · 2024Article
- Artificial selection for reversal learning reveals limited repeatability and no heritability of cognitive flexibility in great tits (Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Blue tits are outperformed by great tits in a test of motor inhibition, and experience does not improve their performance.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Cognitive flexibility in the wild: Individual differences in reversal learning are explained primarily by proactive interference, not by sampling strategies, in two passerine bird species.Learning & behavior · 2022Article
- Assessing cognitive flexibility in humans and rhesus macaques with visual motion and neutral distractors.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Multiple factors affect discrimination learning performance, but not between-individual variation, in wild mixed-species flocks of birds.Royal Society open science · 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Cognition arguably drives most behaviours in animals, but whether and why individuals in the wild vary consistently in their cognitive performance is scarcely known, especially under mixed-species scenarios. One reason for this is that quantifying the relative importance of individual, contextual, ecological and social factors remains a major challenge. We examined how many of these factors, and sources of bias, affected participation and performance, in an initial discrimination learning experiment and two reversal learning experiments during self-administered trials in a population of great tits and blue tits. Individuals were randomly allocated to different rewarding feeders within an array. Participation was high and only weakly affected by age and species. In the initial learning experiment, great tits learned faster than blue tits. Great tits also showed greater consistency in performance across two reversal learning experiments. Individuals assigned to the feeders on the edge of the array learned faster. More errors were made on feeders neighbouring the rewarded feeder and on feeders that had been rewarded in the previous experiment. Our estimates of learning consistency were unaffected by multiple factors, suggesting that, even though there was some influence of these factors on performance, we obtained a robust measure of discrimination learning in the wild.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.