Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41086855›Full record

ArticleBiology letters2025

Instinct to insight: a variation-based framework to test hypotheses about how animals solve problems.

Madison A Rittinger, Rafael Lucas Rodríguez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology letters, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Madison A RittingerDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6326-1572
Rafael Lucas RodríguezDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0262-0839

Funding

American Arachnological SocietyUniversity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Problem-solving is an integral part of most animals' lives. There are generally four types of solutions animals may use: innate, learned previously, learned de novo or insightful. Identifying the types of solutions animals use can be difficult, especially with the trend of having increasingly difficult requirements to test hypotheses in this field. These requirements often amount to proving a negative, which may be impossible. Therefore, here we develop a novel framework for testing hypotheses that can help distinguish the types of solutions animals may use that does not require proving a negative. This framework is based on distinct patterns of

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalInstinctProblem SolvingAnimalscognitioninnateinsightlearningproblem-solving

Identifiers

PMID41086855
PMCPMC12520766

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.