ArticlePloS one2025
Object permanence in domestic cats (Felis catus) using violation-of-expectancy by owner and stranger.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Object permanence, the understanding that objects continue to exist while out of sight, is a key part of the sensorimotor stage of cognitive development. Cats have been shown to reach Stage 5 object permanence by passing successive visible displacement tests, but their understanding of Stage 6 object permanence is less clear. We tested 18 domestic cats on their understanding of Stage 4 and Stage 6 of object permanence in their home environment. Additionally, we investigated how person familiarity may influence study engagement. In single visible displacement (SVD) tests, the box manipulator (owner or researcher) hid a toy in one of two cardboard boxes for the cat to find. In invisible displacement (IVD) tests, we implemented a violation-of-expectancy procedure in which the box manipulator showed a toy re-appearing out of either a) the same box it was hidden in (consistent trials) or b) the box it was not hidden in (violation trials). Approximately half of the cats (56%) did not find the hidden toy in SVD trials, with 42% of these cats not attempting to find the toy, despite previous research demonstrating that cats can retrieve hidden objects in successive SVD tests. None of our predictors significantly influenced whether cats found the toy, or which box was checked first (toy or empty box). In IVD trials, we unexpectedly found that cats were more likely to play with the toy and displayed more toy box-directed behaviours in consistent trials than violation trials. Similarly, we found that cats were more likely to display box-directed behaviours in trials where the researcher acted as the box manipulator. Breed, outdoor access, cat sex, and the first person to act as the box manipulator also influenced toy-directed behaviours. We discuss the complexity of person familiarity in research contexts and highlight some methodological challenges in studying cat cognition.
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.