Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39638926›Full record

ArticleAnimal cognition2024

Mechanical problem solving by plush-crested jays: are tools special after all?

Jimena Lois-Milevicich, Lauriane Rat-Fischer, María Alicia de la Colina, Raúl Orencio Gómez, Juan Carlos Reboreda, Alex Kacelnik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal cognition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Jimena Lois-MilevicichDepartamento de Ecología, Genética y Evolución & IEGEBA-CONICET, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina. jime.loism@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0558-4415
Lauriane Rat-FischerLaboratoire Ethologie Cognition Développement, Université Paris Nanterre, Nanterre, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6366-6614
María Alicia de la ColinaDepartamento de Conservación e Investigación, Fundación Temaikèn, Escobar, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4564-2229
Raúl Orencio GómezDepartamento de Biodiversidad y Biología Experimental & CONICET, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6600-3787
Juan Carlos ReboredaDepartamento de Ecología, Genética y Evolución & IEGEBA-CONICET, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5136-4574
Alex KacelnikDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3188-8255

Funding

Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica PICT 2015-1628Universidad de Buenos Aires UBACyT 20020170100521BA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tool use is taxonomically associated with high behavioural flexibility and innovativeness, and its prevalence is greater in primates and some bird species. This association, however, is not known to be causally determinant of tool-related competence since flexibility and innovativeness are often observed in the absence of tool use and vice versa. For this reason, it is interesting to explore whether animals that can be loosely categorized as outstanding, or 'intelligent' physical problem solvers, are also remarkable using tools innovatively, rather than tool use presenting special constraints. We investigate this problem using plush-crested jays (Cyanocorax chrysops), a corvid new to cognitive research that shows highly flexible and inquisitive behaviour in the wild and has not been reported to use tools. We tested jays in two tasks of apparent similar manipulative complexity and incentive, one involving a tool (T) and the other not (NT). In the NT task birds had to open a box with a transparent lid blocked by a latch to get a reward, whereas in the T task, they had to use a rake to pull out the reward from the box. Eight out of nine subjects succeeded in the NT task, whereas none of them learned to solve the T task. This is consistent with tool use involving dedicated competencies, rather than just high problem-solving proficiency.

Indexed as

Problem SolvingAnimalsFemaleMalePasseriformesTool Use BehaviorAvian cognitionCorvidaeCyanocorax chrysopsGeneral intelligenceProblem solvingTool use

Identifiers

PMID39638926
PMCPMC11621189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.