Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35286729›Full record

SynthesisAmerican journal of primatology2022

Primate cognition in zoos: Reviewing the impact of zoo-based research over 15 years.

Emma S McEwen, Elizabeth Warren, Sadie Tenpas, Benjamin Jones, Kresimir Durdevic, Emilie Rapport Munro, Josep Call

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in American journal of primatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emma S McEwenSchool of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3886-0255
Elizabeth WarrenSchool of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1183-4521
Sadie TenpasSchool of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
Benjamin JonesSchool of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
Kresimir DurdevicSchool of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
Emilie Rapport MunroSchool of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
Josep CallSchool of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8597-8336
University of St Andrews · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Primate cognition research is reliant on access to members of the study sp ecies and logistical infrastructures to conduct observations and experiments. Historically founded in research centers and private collections, and spreading to modern zoos, sanctuaries, and the field, primate cognition has been investigated in diverse settings, each with benefits and challenges. In our systematic review of 12 primatology, animal behavior, and animal cognition journals over the last 15 years, we turn a spotlight on zoos to quantify their current impact on the field and to highlight their potential as robust contributors to future work. To put zoo-based research in context, we compare zoos to three other site types: university-owned or independent research centers, sanctuaries, and field sites. We assess the contributions of zoos across several critical considerations in primate cognition research, including number of investigations, species diversity, sample size, research topic diversity, and methodology. We identified 1119 publications reporting studies of primate cognition, almost 25% of which report research conducted in zoos. Across publications, zoo-based research has greater species diversity than research centers and covers a diverse range of research topics. Although our review is merely a snapshot of primate cognition research, our findings suggest that zoos may present advantages to researchers regarding species diversity, and lack some of the methodological constraints of field sites, allowing greater ease of access to a diverse range of subjects for cognition investigations. We suggest that zoos have great potential as key contributors for future investigations in primate cognition. Finally, we shed light on the symbiotic relationship that can emerge between researchers and zoos, forming partnerships that bring unique advantages to both parties.

Indexed as

Animals, ZooPrimatesAnimalsBehavior, AnimalCognitionHumansResearchmethodologyprimate cognitionzoo research

Identifiers

PMID35286729
PMCPMC9786910
OpenAlexW4220812465

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.