ArticleBrain structure & function2024
Jackdaws form categorical prototypes based on experience with category exemplars.
Article in Brain structure & function, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Behavioral characteristics of rapid visual categorization learning in domestic chicks.Learning & behavior · 2026Article
- "Distribution of dominant wavelengths predicts jackdaw (Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Corvids optimize working memory by categorizing continuous stimuli.Communications biology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Categorization represents one cognitive ability fundamental to animal behavior. Grouping of elements based on perceptual or semantic features helps to reduce processing resources and facilitates appropriate behavior. Corvids master complex categorization, yet the detailed categorization learning strategies are less well understood. We trained two jackdaws on a delayed match to category paradigm using a novel, artificial stimulus type, RUBubbles. Both birds learned to differentiate between two session-unique categories following two distinct learning protocols. Categories were either introduced via central category prototypes (low variability approach) or using a subset of diverse category exemplars from which diagnostic features had to be identified (high variability approach). In both versions, the stimulus similarity relative to a central category prototype explained categorization performance best. Jackdaws consistently used a central prototype to judge category membership, regardless of whether this prototype was used to introduce distinct categories or had to be inferred from multiple exemplars. Reliance on a category prototype occurred already after experiencing only a few trials with different category exemplars. High stimulus set variability prolonged initial learning but showed no consistent beneficial effect on later generalization performance. High numbers of stimuli, their perceptual similarity, and coherent category structure resulted in a prototype-based strategy, reflecting the most adaptive, efficient, and parsimonious way to represent RUBubble categories. Thus, our birds represent a valuable comparative animal model that permits further study of category representations throughout learning in different regions of a brain producing highly cognitive behavior.
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.