Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38748738›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2024

Marmosets mutually compensate for differences in rhythms when coordinating vigilance.

Nikhil Phaniraj, Rahel K Brügger, Judith M Burkart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. 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

3 authors.

Nikhil PhanirajInstitute of Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-9633-8705
Rahel K BrüggerInstitute of Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-8373-2255
Judith M BurkartInstitute of Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-6229-525X

Funding

chweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung 31003A_172979H2020 European Research Council 101001295National Centre for Competence in Research Evolving Language 51NF40_180888
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Synchronization is widespread in animals, and studies have often emphasized how this seemingly complex phenomenon can emerge from very simple rules. However, the amount of flexibility and control that animals might have over synchronization properties, such as the strength of coupling, remains underexplored. Here, we studied how pairs of marmoset monkeys coordinated vigilance while feeding. By modeling them as coupled oscillators, we noted that (1) individual marmosets do not show perfect periodicity in vigilance behaviors, (2) nevertheless, marmoset pairs started to take turns being vigilant over time, a case of anti-phase synchrony, (3) marmosets could couple flexibly; the coupling strength varied with every new joint feeding bout, and (4) marmosets could control the coupling strength; dyads showed increased coupling if they began in a more desynchronized state. Such flexibility and control over synchronization require more than simple interaction rules. Minimally, animals must estimate the current degree of asynchrony and adjust their behavior accordingly. Moreover, the fact that each marmoset is inherently non-periodic adds to the cognitive demand. Overall, our study provides a mathematical framework to investigate the cognitive demands involved in coordinating behaviors in animals, regardless of whether individual behaviors are rhythmic or not.

Indexed as

CallithrixAnimalsArousalBehavior, AnimalComputational BiologyFeeding BehaviorFemaleMaleModels, BiologicalPeriodicity

Identifiers

PMID38748738
PMCPMC11132515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.