SynthesisProceedings. Biological sciences2024
Response to geometrical visual illusions in non-human animals: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Response to geometrical visual illusions in non-human animals: a meta-analysis.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Pooled it
- Illusory speeding-up and slowing-down of objects moving at constant speed emerges from natural motion detection algorithms.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Visual illusions have been studied in many non-human species, spanning a wide range of biological and methodological variables. While early reviews have proved useful in providing an overview of the field, they have not been accompanied by quantitative analysis to systematically evaluate the contribution of biological and methodological moderators on the proportion of illusory choice. In the current meta-analytical study, we confirm that geometrical visual illusion perception is a general phenomenon among non-human animals. Additionally, we found that studies testing birds report stronger illusion perception compared to other classes, as do those on animals with lateral-positioned eyes compared to animals with forward-facing eyes. In terms of methodological choices, we found a positive correlation between the number of trials during training or testing and the effect sizes, while studies with larger samples report smaller effect sizes. Despite studies that trained animals with artificial stimuli showing larger effect sizes compared with those using spontaneous testing with naturalistic stimuli, like food, we found more recent studies prefer spontaneous choice over training. We discuss the challenges and bottlenecks in this area of study, which, if addressed, could lead to more successful advances in the future.
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.