ArticlePloS one2025
Testing semantic compositionality in baboons (Papio papio) through relearning and generalization.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates whether baboons are capable of semantic compositionality, specifically, whether they can apply compositional rules to new situations (generalization). In language, semantic compositionality is linked to productivity, the generalization of a rule to new combinations. Across four experiments, baboons were trained to match visual stimuli based on either shape or color depending on symbolic cues. Experiments 1-3 tested generalization under different task complexities but consistently failed to show evidence that baboons understood or applied the matching rules beyond memorized combinations. Only in Experiment 4, which used a relearning paradigm rather than generalization, did baboons show improved performance when the rule remained consistent across phases. Four hypotheses were explored to explain the lack of generalization: an iconicity-novelty bias, the possibility that compositionality is present, but that training was not sufficient for generalization, rote memorization of cue-sample pairs, and a difference between implicit and explicit learning. The findings do not allow us to discriminate between these hypotheses.
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.