Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35179665›Full record

ArticleAnimal cognition2022

Zebrafish excel in number discrimination under an operant conditioning paradigm.

Angelo Bisazza, Maria Santacà

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal cognition, 2022. 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. Article
  4. Review
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

2 authors.

Angelo BisazzaDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Maria SantacàDepartment of Biology, University of Padova, Viale Giuseppe Colombo 3-Via Ugo Bassi 58/B, 35131, Padua, Italy. santacamaria@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6590-3831

Funding

Università degli Studi di Padova DOR grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerical discrimination is widespread in vertebrates, but this capacity varies enormously between the different species examined. The guppy (Poecilia reticulata), the only teleost examined following procedures that allow a comparison with the other vertebrates, outperforms amphibians, reptiles and many warm-blooded vertebrates, but it is unclear whether this is a feature shared with the other teleosts or represents a peculiarity of this species. We trained zebrafish (Danio rerio) to discriminate between numbers differing by one unit, varying task difficulty from 2 versus 3 to 5 versus 6 items. Non-numerical variables that covary with number, such as density or area, did not affect performance. Most fish reached learning criterion on all tasks up to 4 versus 5 discrimination with no sex difference in accuracy. Although no individual reached learning criterion in the 5 versus 6 task, performance was significant at the group level, suggesting that this may represent the discrimination threshold for zebrafish. Numerosity discrimination abilities of zebrafish compare to those of guppy, being higher than in some warm-blooded vertebrates, such as dogs, horses and domestic fowl, though lower than in parrots, corvids and primates. Learning rate was similar in a control group trained to discriminate between different-sized shapes, but zebrafish were slightly more accurate when discriminating areas than numbers and males were more accurate than females. At the end of the experiment, fish trained on numbers and controls trained on areas generalized to the reciprocal set of stimuli, indicating they had used a relational strategy to solve these tasks.

Indexed as

Conditioning, OperantPoeciliaAnimalsDiscrimination LearningFemaleLearningMaleVertebratesZebrafishDanio rerioFish cognitionNumerical discriminationQuantity discrimination

Identifiers

PMID35179665
PMCPMC9334370

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.