ArticlePloS one2025
Continuous or discrete magnitudes? A comparative study between cats, dogs and humans.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A long-standing question in the study of quantity discrimination is what stimulus properties are controlling choice. While some species have been found to do it based on the total amount of stimuli and without using numerical information, others prefer numeric rather than any continuous magnitude. Here, we tested cats, dogs, and humans using a simple two-way spontaneous choice paradigm (involving food for the first two, images for the latter) to see whether numerosity or total surface area has a greater influence on their decision. We found that cats showed preference for the larger amount of food when the ratio between the stimuli was 0.5, but not when it was 0.67; dogs did not differentiate between stimuli presenting the two options (smaller vs. larger amount of food) regardless of the ratio between them, but humans did so almost perfectly. When faced with two stimuli of the same area but different shapes, dogs and humans exhibited a preference for certain shapes, particularly the circle, while cats' choices seemed to be at chance level. Furthermore, cats' and dogs' reaction times were equal across conditions, while humans were quicker when choosing between stimuli in trials where the shape was the same, but the surface area was different, and even more so when asked to choose between two differently sized circle shapes. Results suggest that there is no universal rule regarding how to process quantity, but rather that quantity estimation seems to be tied to the ecological context of each species. Future work should focus on testing quantity estimation in different contexts and different sources of motivation.
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.