Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34820602›Full record

ArticleiScience2021

Orangutans have larger gestural repertoires in captivity than in the wild-A case of weak innovation?

Marlen Fröhlich, Natasha Bartolotta, Caroline Fryns, Colin Wagner, Laurene Momon, Marvin Jaffrezic, Tatang Mitra Setia, Caroline Schuppli, Maria A van Noordwijk, Carel P van Schaik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in iScience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Brokering peace in the ape (culture) wars.Evolutionary human sciences · 2026
    Article
  2. Assessing flexibility in meaning and context in non-human communication.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Social tolerance and interactional opportunities as drivers of gestural redoings in orang-utans.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Article
  12. 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

10 authors.

Marlen FröhlichDepartment of Anthropology, University of Zurich, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland.
Natasha BartolottaDepartment of Anthropology, University of Zurich, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland.
Caroline FrynsDepartment of Anthropology, University of Zurich, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland.
Colin WagnerDépartement Ecologie, Physiologie et Ethologie, University of Strasbourg, 67037 Strasbourg, France.
Laurene MomonDépartement Ecologie, Physiologie et Ethologie, University of Strasbourg, 67037 Strasbourg, France.
Marvin JaffrezicDépartement Ecologie, Physiologie et Ethologie, University of Strasbourg, 67037 Strasbourg, France.
Tatang Mitra SetiaFakultas Biologi, Universitas Nasional, 12520 Jakarta Selatan, Indonesia.
Caroline SchuppliDepartment of Anthropology, University of Zurich, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland.
Maria A van NoordwijkDepartment of Anthropology, University of Zurich, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland.
Carel P van SchaikDepartment of Anthropology, University of Zurich, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whether nonhuman species can change their communicative repertoire in response to socio-ecological environments has critical implications for communicative innovativeness prior to the emergence of human language, with its unparalleled productivity. Here, we use a comparative sample of wild and zoo-housed orangutans of two species (

Indexed as

AnthropologyWildlife behaviorZoo animal behavior

Identifiers

PMID34820602
PMCPMC8601978

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.