Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37855842›Full record

ArticleAnimal cognition2023

Spot the odd one out: do snake pictures capture macaques' attention more than other predators?

Karl Zeller, Sébastien Ballesta, Hélène Meunier, Julie Duboscq, Luca Morino, Adam Rimele, Xavier Bonnet, Audrey Maille, Guillaume Dezecache, Cécile Garcia

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

10 authors.

Karl ZellerUnité Eco-Anthropologie (EA), UMR 7206, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, CNRS, Université Paris Cité, Musée de l'Homme 17 Place du Trocadéro, 75016, Paris, France. karl.zeller@edu.mnhn.fr.
Sébastien BallestaLaboratoire de Neurosciences Cognitives et Adaptatives, UMR 7364, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Hélène MeunierLaboratoire de Neurosciences Cognitives et Adaptatives, UMR 7364, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Julie DuboscqUnité Eco-Anthropologie (EA), UMR 7206, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, CNRS, Université Paris Cité, Musée de l'Homme 17 Place du Trocadéro, 75016, Paris, France.
Luca MorinoMénagerie du Jardin Des Plantes, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 57 rue Cuvier, 75005, Paris, France.
Adam RimeleCentre de Primatologie de l'Université de Strasbourg, Silabe, Niederhausbergen, France.
Xavier BonnetCentre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, UMR 7372, CNRS ULR, Villiers-en-Bois, France.
Audrey MailleUnité Eco-Anthropologie (EA), UMR 7206, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, CNRS, Université Paris Cité, Musée de l'Homme 17 Place du Trocadéro, 75016, Paris, France.
Guillaume DezecacheUniversité Clermont Auvergne, LAPSCO, CNRS, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Cécile GarciaUnité Eco-Anthropologie (EA), UMR 7206, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, CNRS, Université Paris Cité, Musée de l'Homme 17 Place du Trocadéro, 75016, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

SnakesAnimalsHumansMacacaMacaca mulattaReaction TimeCategorizationDiscriminationOddity taskPredator detectionPrimatesSnake detection theory

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.