Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37071255›Full record

ArticlePrimates; journal of primatology2023

Revisiting the mark test for mirror self-recognition.

Tony Calmette, Hélène Meunier

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Primates; journal of primatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Simian Selves: From the Mirror Test to Habeas Corpus.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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.

Tony CalmetteCentre de Primatologie, Université de Strasbourg, Niederhausbergen, France. tony.calmette@ens-lyon.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9267-6291
Hélène MeunierCentre de Primatologie, Université de Strasbourg, Niederhausbergen, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8826-9896

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite half a century of research, few species have exhibited convincing evidence of mirror self-recognition. Several methodological objections to Gallup's mark test have been raised, but empirical studies have shown that methodology does not adequately explain why most species fail to recognize themselves in mirrors. However, a potential issue was constantly overlooked: mirror ecological relevance. Although reflective surfaces in nature are horizontal, previous studies indeed used vertical mirrors. The present study revisited the mark test to address this issue in an experiment with capuchin monkeys (Sapajus apella). Additionally, a new procedure based on sticker exchange was designed to maximize mark attractiveness. Subjects were first trained to exchange stickers, habituated to being head-touched, and exposed to a horizontal mirror. Then, their mirror self-recognition was tested by surreptitiously placing a sticker on their forehead before requesting them to exchange stickers. None of the monkeys removed the sticker from their forehead in the presence of the mirror. In line with previous studies, this result suggests that capuchin monkeys lack the ability to recognize themselves in mirrors. Nonetheless, this modified mark test could prove useful in future studies, including investigation of interindividual variability of mirror self-recognition in self-recognizing species.

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalVisual PerceptionAnimalsCebusRecognition, PsychologyCapuchin monkeyEcological relevanceHorizontal mirrorMark testSelf-recognitionSticker exchange

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.