ArticlePeerJ2025
Do goats recognise humans cross-modally?
Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recognition plays a key role in the social lives of gregarious species, enabling animals to distinguish among social partners and tailor their behaviour accordingly. As domesticated animals regularly interact with humans, as well as members of their own species, we might expect mechanisms used to discriminate between conspecifics to also apply to humans. Given that goats can combine visual and vocal cues to recognise one another, we investigated whether this cross-modal recognition extends to discriminating among familiar humans. We presented 26 goats (17 males and nine females) with facial photographs of familiar people and two repeated playbacks of a voice, either congruent (from the same person) or incongruent with that photograph (from a different person). When cues were incongruent, violating their expectations, we expected goats to show changes in physiological parameters and moreover, respond faster and for longer after playbacks. Accordingly, heart rate decreased as the playback sequence progressed, but only when the face and voice presented were incongruent. Heart rate variability was also affected by congruency, but we were unable to determine precisely where differences lay. However, goats showed no changes in time taken to respond, or how long they responded for (our primary variables of interest). We also found evidence to suggest that shifts in cardiac responses may not have been robust. Although our findings could imply that goats had successfully perceived differences in congruency between the visual and vocal identity information presented, further evidence is needed to determine whether they are capable of cross-modal recognition of humans.
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.