ArticleBrain and behavior2024
Executive functions and brain morphology of male and female dominant and subordinate cichlid fish.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Simple life, simple minds? How habitat simplification in aquatic ecosystems shape fish cognition.Animal cognition · 2026Review
- ManyFishes: a big team science collaboration on fish comparative cognition.Animal cognition · 2025Review
- Stress in the spotlight: impacts of stress on learning and memory in a cichlid fish.Animal cognition · 2025Article
- Lizards and tortoises show evidence of low inhibitory control.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The fish challenge to vertebrate cognitive evolution.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
- Cleaner wrasse failed in early testing stages of both visual and spatial working memory paradigms.Animal cognition · 2025Article
- Article
- Executive functions and brain morphology of male and female dominant and subordinate cichlid fish.Brain and behavior · 2024Article
- Social complexity affects cognitive abilities but not brain structure in a Poeciliid fish.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
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
backgroundLiving in a social dominance hierarchy presents different benefits and challenges for dominant and subordinate males and females, which might in turn affect their cognitive needs. Despite the extensive research on social dominance in group-living species, there is still a knowledge gap regarding how social status impacts brain morphology and cognitive abilities.
methodsHere, we tested male and female dominants and subordinates of Neolamprologus pulcher, a social cichlid fish species with size-based hierarchy. We ran three executive cognitive function tests for cognitive flexibility (reversal learning test), self-control (detour test), and working memory (object permanence test), followed by brain and brain region size measurements.
resultsPerformance was not influenced by social status or sex. However, dominants exhibited a brain-body slope that was relatively steeper than that of subordinates. Furthermore, individual performance in reversal learning and detour tests correlated with brain morphology, with some trade-offs among major brain regions like telencephalon, cerebellum, and optic tectum.
conclusionAs individuals' brain growth strategies varied depending on social status without affecting executive functions, the different associated challenges might yield a potential effect on social cognition instead. Overall, the findings highlight the importance of studying the individual and not just species to understand better how the individual's ecology might shape its brain and cognition.
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.