ArticleAnimal cognition2023
Spot the odd one out: do snake pictures capture macaques' attention more than other predators?
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 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Detecting and identifying predators quickly is key to survival. According to the Snake Detection Theory (SDT), snakes have been a substantive threat to primates for millions of years, so that dedicated visual skills were tuned to detect snakes in early primates. Past experiments confronted the SDT by measuring how fast primate subjects detected snake pictures among non-dangerous distractors (e.g., flowers), but did not include pictures of primates' other predators, such as carnivorans, raptors, and crocodilians. Here, we examined the detection abilities of N = 19 Tonkean macaques (Macaca tonkeana) and N = 6 rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) to spot different predators. By implementing an oddity task protocol, we recorded success rates and reaction times to locate a deviant picture among four pictures over more than 400,000 test trials. Pictures depicted a predator, a non-predator animal, or a simple geometric shape. The first task consisted of detecting a deviant picture among identical distractor pictures (discrimination) and the second task was designed to evaluate detection abilities of a deviant picture among different distractor pictures (categorization). The macaques detected pictures of geometric shapes better and faster than pictures of animals, and were better and faster at discriminating than categorizing. The macaques did not detect snakes better or faster than other animal categories. Overall, these results suggest that pictures of snakes do not capture visual attention more than other predators, questioning previous findings in favor of the SDT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37855842What 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.