ArticleRoyal Society open science2025
Non-adjacent dependency processing (or lack thereof) in bonobos: an artificial grammar experiment.
Article in Royal Society open science, 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.
- Non-adjacent dependency processing (or lack thereof) in bonobos: an artificial grammar experiment.Royal Society open science · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A key feature of language is our capacity to process syntactic relationships between words, whether they are directly sequential ('adjacent dependencies') or separated by other words ('non-adjacent dependencies'). Recent data suggest that the basic ability to compute adjacent and non-adjacent dependencies is not uniquely human, but rooted deep within our primate lineage, perhaps as far back as our last shared ancestor with chimpanzees and common marmosets (approx. 40 Ma). However, this conclusion hinges on comparable data from other non-human primate species, in particular from bonobos, to whom we are equidistantly related to chimpanzees. To further explore this ancestral hypothesis, we tested if bonobos process both adjacent and non-adjacent dependencies in an artificial grammar learning paradigm. We habituated subjects to strings of arbitrary acoustic stimuli comprised of predictive 'rules' between elements that were consistent with adjacent and non-adjacent dependencies. We then tested whether the bonobos were able to (i) apply these rules to novel acoustic stimuli and (ii) detect rule violations. Ultimately, we found no evidence that bonobos processed adjacent or non-adjacent dependencies. This finding ostensibly complicates claims for homologous origins for this capacity, but additional data from other bonobo populations and other great ape species are necessary to draw firm evolutionary inferences.
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.