ArticleBiology letters2024
Inferential reasoning abilities in wild-caught bumblebees.
Article in Biology letters, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bee reasonable: Do bumblebees reason by exclusion?Learning & behavior · 2025Article
- People and Pets: Good for Each Other?Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Inferential reasoning abilities in wild-caught bumblebees.Biology letters · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The ability to make a decision by excluding alternatives (i.e. inferential reasoning) is a type of logical reasoning that allows organisms to solve problems with incomplete information. Several species of vertebrates have been shown to find hidden food using inferential reasoning abilities. Yet little is known about invertebrates' logical reasoning capabilities. In three experiments, I examined wild-caught bumblebees' abilities to locate a 'rewarded' stimulus using direct information or incomplete information-the latter requiring bees to use inferential reasoning. To do so, I adapted three paradigms previously used with primates-the two-cup, three-cup and double two-cup tasks. Bumblebees saw either two paper strips (experiment 1), three paper strips (experiment 2) or two pairs of paper strips (experiment 3) and experienced one of them being rewarded or unrewarded. At the test, they could choose between two (experiment 1), three (experiment 2) or four paper strips (experiment 3). Bumblebees succeeded in the three tasks and their performance was consistent with inferential reasoning. These findings highlight the importance of comparative studies with invertebrates to comprehensively track the evolution of reasoning abilities, in particular, and cognition, in general.
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.