Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41296061›Full record

ReviewAnimal cognition2025

Challenges and new opportunities in deciphering the meaning of corvid call sequences.

Ambre Salis, Killian Martin, Cédric Girard-Buttoz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animal cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Utterance evolution: the road to generative, combinatorial communicators.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
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

3 authors.

Ambre Salis *Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Ascot, UK. salis.ambre87@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0753-8981
Killian Martin *Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon, Lyon, 69007, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8428-6012
Cédric Girard-ButtozENES Bioacoustics Research Laboratory, Centre de Recherche en Neurosciences de Lyon, CNRS, Inserm, University of Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1742-4400

Funding

UK Research and Innovation EP/Z002508/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to their complex social systems and remarkable cognitive abilities, corvids are interesting candidates for large scale comparative research on the meaning of animal calls. However, research on corvid communication has primarily focused on individual signatures or mimicry capabilities, and investigations into the meaning of their calls have yielded comparatively fewer results. This discrepancy can be attributed to several challenges faced by researchers, including difficulties in identifying the units that convey meaning, accurately determining the specific context associated with a call, and the limitations of traditional playback methods when applied to species with extensive repertoires and considerable flexibility in call sequences. In this review, we outline a series of emerging research avenues—recently explored in other songbirds and mammals—that may prove valuable for researchers seeking to understand the meaning behind corvid call sequences. We specifically address the various approaches to identify meaning-bearing units; the strategies for refining the definition of ‘context’ in the assessment of corvids’ repertoires; and the novel protocols and methods that offer alternative perspectives on meaning, beyond the classical playback experimental approaches that were historically used to assess the meaning of calls or call sequences.

Indexed as

CrowsVocalization, AnimalAnimalsAnimal communicationCorvidMeaningMethodologySemantic

Identifiers

PMID41296061
PMCPMC12657554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.