ArticleAnimal cognition2021
Do zoo visitors induce attentional bias effects in primates completing cognitive tasks?
Article in Animal cognition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- On the (limited) use of touchscreen-based behavioural and cognitive research with dogs: potential causes and future directions.Animal cognition · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Apex and ApeTouch: Development of a Portable Touchscreen System and Software for Primates at Zoos.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- A Comparative Perspective on Three Primate Species' Responses to a Pictorial Emotional Stroop Task.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While previous research has focused on the impact of visitors on zoo-housed animals' behavior, here, we evaluated the impact of visitors on the performance of four zoo-housed Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata) in a cognitive task. The macaques completed a touchscreen-based match-to-sample task in glass-sided booths at the perimeter of their enclosure, adjacent to a visitor viewing area. The task was novel to all macaques at the start of this study but over the 6-month testing period the macaques showed increased accuracy on the task, suggestive of learning. We recorded the number of visitors within the viewing area roughly every 12 trials each macaque completed. We categorized visitor counts as small (0-20), medium (21-40), and large (41-60) crowds and we considered the macaques' response latencies and accuracy by crowd size and study period (first 3 months versus second 3 months). If visitor presence negatively influenced performance, we predicted that macaques' accuracy would decrease but response times would increase with crowd size. We found effects of crowd size and study period on the macaques' accuracy. In the first period, the macaques performed at chance and accuracy did not differ across crowd categories. In the second period, the macaques' accuracy improved as compared to the first period, but their accuracy was mediated by crowd size: the macaques were significantly more accurate in the presence of small crowds than medium or large crowds. The macaques' response latencies also varied by study period and crowd size, but we found no evidence of a response-slowing effect.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33156406What 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.