ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2025
The evolutionary puzzle of cognition: challenges and insights from individual-based studies.
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Repeatedly unreliable, and unreliably repeatable: the trials-to-criterion fallacy.Animal cognition · 2026Article
- Selection shapes diverse animal minds.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Linking individual fitness to the evolution of cognition.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cognition is widely believed to confer adaptive benefits, yet empirically demonstrating these benefits and understanding their evolutionary origin remains a significant challenge. Individual-based studies in the wild are essential for demonstrating that a cognitive trait is an adaptation. However, such approaches have so far yielded only partial evidence for the adaptive significance of cognition. Building on previous research, we highlight key challenges of individual-based studies that remain underappreciated and warrant further attention. These include the need for precise characterization of functionally relevant cognitive traits, a deeper understanding of heritable variation, more robust assessments of key fitness components across large cohorts and extended timescales, and clearer identification of the fitness benefits and selective pressures involved. We discuss how the lack of such comprehensive information limits our ability to fully evaluate how cognitive traits affect fitness, and to explore their demographic and evolutionary consequences. To bridge the gap between micro- and macroevolutionary processes, we also emphasize the need to better integrate individual-based research with broader population and species comparative analyses. By refining and expanding the approach, individual-based studies can deepen our insight into the evolutionary forces that have given rise to the remarkable diversity of minds across the animal kingdom.This article is part of the Theo Murphy meeting issue 'Selection shapes diverse animal minds'.
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.