Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34326392›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Kea (Nestor notabilis) fail a loose-string connectivity task.

Amalia P M Bastos, Patrick M Wood, Alex H Taylor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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.

Amalia P M BastosSchool of Psychology, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand. a.bastos@auckland.ac.nz.ORCID 0000-0003-3037-687X
Patrick M WoodSchool of Psychology, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-6681-0263
Alex H TaylorSchool of Psychology, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-3492-7667

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Naïve individuals of some bird species can rapidly solve vertical string-pulling tasks with virtually no errors. This has led to various hypotheses being proposed which suggest that birds mentally simulate the effects of their actions on strings. A competing embodied cognition hypothesis proposes that this behaviour is instead modulated by perceptual-motor feedback loops, where feedback of the reward moving closer acts as an internal motivator for functional behaviours, such as pull-stepping. To date, the kea parrot has produced some of the best performances of any bird species at string-pulling tasks. Here, we tested the predictions of the four leading hypotheses for the cognition underpinning bird string-pulling by presenting kea with a horizontal connectivity task where only one of two loose strings was connected to the reward, both before and after receiving perceptual-motor feedback experience. We find that kea fail the connectivity task both before and after perceptual-motor feedback experience, suggesting not only that kea do not mentally simulate their string-pulling actions, but also that perceptual-motor feedback alone is insufficient in eliciting successful performance in the horizontal connectivity task. This suggests a more complex interplay of cognitive factors underlies this iconic example of animal problem-solving.

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalFeedback, PsychologicalAnimalsBayes TheoremCognitionMaleMotivationMotor SkillsParrotsProblem SolvingReproducibility of ResultsReward

Identifiers

PMID34326392
PMCPMC8322428

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.