ArticleAnimal cognition2023
Do you see what I see? Testing horses' ability to recognise real-life objects from 2D computer projections.
Article in Animal cognition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review on the effect of individual characteristics and management practices on equine cognition.Animal cognition · 2025Pooled it
- Training and transfer test to study the referential understanding of conspecific photographs by goats.Animal cognition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The use of 2-dimensional representations (e.g. photographs or digital images) of real-life physical objects has been an important tool in studies of animal cognition. Horses are reported to recognise objects and individuals (conspecifics and humans) from printed photographs, but it is unclear whether image recognition is also true for digital images, e.g. computer projections. We expected that horses trained to discriminate between two real-life objects would show the same learnt response to digital images of these objects indicating that the images were perceived as objects, or representations of such. Riding-school horses (N = 27) learnt to touch one of two objects (target object counterbalanced between horses) to instantly receive a food reward. After discrimination learning (three consecutive sessions of 8/10 correct trials), horses were immediately tested with on-screen images of the objects over 10 image trials interspersed with five real object trials. At first image presentation, all but two horses spontaneously responded to the images with the learnt behaviour by contacting one of the two images, but the number of horses touching the correct image was not different from chance (14/27 horses, p > 0.05). Only one horse touched the correct image above chance level across 10 image trials (9/10 correct responses, p = 0.021). Our findings thus question whether horses recognise real-life objects from digital images. We discuss how methodological factors and individual differences (i.e. age, welfare state) might have influenced animals' response to the images, and the importance of validating the suitability of stimuli of this kind for cognitive studies in horses.
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.