Object Permanence Cognitive Task Solution Using Wild Rodents.

Daniil A Blinov, Olga V Perepelkina, Inga I Poletaeva

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2026. 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

3 authors.

Daniil A BlinovBiology Department, Lomonossov Moscow State University, Moscow 119991, Russia.

Olga V PerepelkinaBiology Department, Lomonossov Moscow State University, Moscow 119991, Russia.

Inga I PoletaevaBiology Department, Lomonossov Moscow State University, Moscow 119991, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-1277-9918

Funding

Development Program of Moscow State University, No.121032500080-8".

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The understanding of the object permanence rule (the notion that an object that has disappeared from view continues to exist) is an important issue for animal cognition studies. This ability has been tested in laboratory rodents, but no studies have been conducted using wild rodent species. The aim of this study was to compare the ability to use the object permanence rule in three species of wild rodents and to identify plausible interspecific behavioral differences. The wood mouse (

Indexed as

animal cognitionbank voleecological differenceselementary reasoninginterspecies differencespuzzle-box teststriped field wild mousewood mouse

Identifiers

PMID41828943

DOI10.3390/ani16050734

PMCPMC12984140

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.