ArticleLearning & behavior2024
No evidence of real-world equivalence in chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) categorizing visually diverse images of natural stimuli presented on LCD monitors.
Article in Learning & behavior, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- On the (limited) use of touchscreen-based behavioural and cognitive research with dogs: potential causes and future directions.Animal cognition · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Category learning is often tested with similar images that have no significance outside of the experiment for the subjects. By contrast, in nature animals often need to generalize a behavioral response like "eat" across visually distinct stimuli, such as spiders and seeds. Forming functional categories like "food" and "predator" may require conceptual rather than purely perceptual generalization. We trained free-range chickens to classify images assigned to one of four categories based on putative functional significance: inanimate objects, predators, food, and non-competing vertebrates. Images were visually diverse within each category, discouraging classification by perceptual similarity alone. In Experiment 1, chickens classified 80 images into four categories. Chickens then generalized to 80 new exemplars in each of three successive generalization tests. In Experiment 2, chickens saw new types of images to test whether their generalization was perceptual or functional. For example, chickens saw images of skunks for the predator category after training with images of hawks and snakes. Chickens used the "predator" response with these new images for both predators and non-threatening vertebrates, but not for objects or food, and did not successfully generalize any category other than predator. In Experiment 3, chickens categorized fractals as "food," and three of four chickens categorized a range of vertebrates they had not previously encountered as "predators," suggesting that chickens did not see the images as representing real world objects and animals. These results highlight constraints on the use of computer-generated images to assess categorization of natural stimuli in chickens.
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.