ArticlePloS one2022
"Classifying-together" phenomenon in fish (Xenotoca eiseni): Simultaneous exposure to visual stimuli impairs subsequent discrimination learning.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring visual categorical learning in teleost fish Danio rerio and Xenotoca eiseni.Animal cognition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When animals are previously exposed to two different visual stimuli simultaneously, their learning performance at discriminating those stimuli delays: such a phenomenon is known as "classifying-together" or "Bateson effect". However, the consistency of this phenomenon has not been wholly endorsed, especially considering the evidence collected in several vertebrates. The current study addressed whether a teleost fish, Xenotoca eiseni, was liable to the Bateson effect. Three experiments were designed, by handling the visual stimuli (i.e., a full red disk, an amputated red disk, a red cross) and the presence of an exposure phase, before performing a discriminative learning task (Exp. 1: full red disk vs. amputated red disk; Exp. 2: full red disk vs. red cross). In the exposure phase, three conditions per pairs of training stimuli were arranged: "congruence", where fish were exposed and trained to choose the same stimulus; "wide-incongruence", where fish were exposed to one stimulus and trained to choose the other one; "narrow-incongruence", where fish were exposed to both the stimuli and trained to choose one of them. In the absence of exposure (Exp. 3), the discrimination learning task was carried out to establish a baseline performance as regards the full red disk vs. amputated red disk, and the full red disk vs. red cross. Results showed that fish ran into retardation effects at learning when trained to choose a novel stimulus with respect to the one experienced during the exposure-phase (wide-incongruence condition), as well as after being simultaneously exposed to both stimuli (narrow-incongruence condition). Furthermore, there were no facilitation effects due to the congruence compared with the baseline: in such a case, familiar stimuli did not ease the performance at learning. The study provides the first evidence about the consistency of the classifying-together effect in a fish species, further highlighting the impact of visual similarities on discrimination processes.
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.