ArticleBehavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology
How animals discriminate between stimulus magnitudes: a meta-analysis.
Article in Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Circles of deception: the Ebbinghaus illusion from fish to birds.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- How animals discriminate between stimulus magnitudes: a meta-analysis.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To maximize their fitness, animals must often discriminate between stimuli differing in magnitude (such as size, intensity, or number). Weber's Law of proportional processing states that stimuli are compared based on the proportional difference in magnitude, rather than the absolute difference. Weber's Law implies that when stimulus magnitudes are higher, it becomes harder to discriminate small differences between stimuli, leading to more discrimination errors. More generally, we can refer to a correlation between stimulus magnitude and discrimination error frequency as a magnitude effect, with Weber's law being a special case of the magnitude effect. However, the strength and prevalence of the magnitude effect across species have never previously been examined. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to quantify the strength of the magnitude effect across studies, finding that, on average, perception followed Weber's Law. However, the strength of the magnitude effect varied widely, and this variation was not explained by any biological or methodological differences between studies that we examined. Our findings suggest that although its strength varies considerably, the magnitude effect is commonplace, and this sensory bias is therefore likely to affect signal evolution across diverse systems. Better discrimination at lower magnitudes might result in signalers evolving lower magnitude signals when being discriminated is beneficial, and higher magnitude signals when being discriminated is costly. Furthermore, selection for higher magnitude signals (eg sexual ornaments) may be weakened, because receivers are less able to discriminate as signal magnitudes increase.
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.