ArticleLearning & behavior2023
I'll (not) take that: The reverse-reward contingency task as a test of self-control and inhibition.
Article in Learning & behavior, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retesting reverse-reward performance in capuchin monkeys (Sapajus apella) after 16 years: evidence of aging-related decline.Primates; journal of primatology · 2026Article
- Smart Ungulates: What Sheep and Goats' Performances in a Reversed-Reward Contingency Task Tell Us About the Evolution of Cognitive Flexibility.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Differences in inhibitory control in two species of Tanganyikan bower-building cichlids contrasting in building flexibility.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Cognitive flexibility in a Tanganyikan bower-building cichlid, Aulonocranus dewindti.Animal cognition · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While searching for more evidence of quantitative skills in chimpanzees to add to what she already had found, Boysen discovered something else. When training chimpanzees to point at what they would not get, and not pointing at what they would get, none could do this for piles of food items. Even when those items in the pointed-at set were given away to another chimpanzee, and even with experience in the task, failure persisted. This test, the reverse-reward contingency test, has now been used with many species, as a means of assessing inhibitory control and perhaps self-control in animals. Typically, the task is difficult, and only specific manipulations have worked to allow primates to overcome the reversed contingencies. This includes using symbolic stimuli, adding another layer to the story, and more value to the task itself as a measure perhaps of forms of cognitive control in other species. I will discuss some of these empirical results, including from other chimpanzees who were given variations of the task, and how these studies have influenced numerous areas within comparative cognitive science.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.