ArticleScientific reports2026
Assessing quantity combination and dissociation in giraffes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
Several species have demonstrated the ability to mentally manipulate quantities in tasks requiring their combination and dissociation, reflecting perceptual memory-based mechanisms that may be the foundation of proto-arithmetic and in some cases more advanced arithmetic abilities. Yet, ungulates remain underrepresented in this line of research. Here, we present the first investigation in giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis) assessing their ability to combine and dissociate quantities. We tested four captive giraffes in three experimental and two controls tasks. In the experimental tasks, the animals could only see the initial quantities and the items moved, but not the final amounts. Results revealed that giraffes performed above chance in the Combination task (where food was combined to one of two covered quantities). However, they performed at chance level in both the Dissociation task (where food was removed from one of two covered quantities) and the Subsequent Events task (where food was transferred from one of the two quantities to the other one). Further analyses suggested that while two subjects might have relied on simpler strategies (e.g., choosing or avoiding the dish manipulated by the experimenter), the other two succeeded even when this strategy could not be used, suggesting the potential use of more complex mental computations.
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.