↓ Skip to main content

Non-tool-using rooks, Corvus frugilegus, solve the trap-tube problem

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, December 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
90 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
160 Mendeley
Title
Non-tool-using rooks, Corvus frugilegus, solve the trap-tube problem
Published in
Animal Cognition, December 2006
DOI 10.1007/s10071-006-0061-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sabine Tebbich, Amanda M. Seed, Nathan J. Emery, Nicola S. Clayton

Abstract

The trap-tube problem is used to assess whether an individual is able to foresee the outcome of its actions. To solve the task, an animal must use a tool to push a piece of food out of a tube, which has a trap along its length. An animal may learn to avoid the trap through a rule based on associative processes, e.g. using the distance of trap or food as a cue, or by understanding relations between cause and effect. This task has been used to test physical cognition in a number of tool-using species, but never a non-tool-user. We developed an experimental design that enabled us to test non-tool-using rooks, Corvus frugilegus. Our modification of the task removed the cognitive requirements of active tool use but still allowed us to test whether rooks can solve the trap-tube problem, and if so how. Additionally, we developed two new control tasks to determine whether rooks were able to transfer knowledge to similar, but novel problems, thus revealing more about the mechanisms involved in solving the task. We found that three out of seven rooks solved the modified trap-tube problem task, showing that the ability to solve the trap-tube problem is not restricted to tool-using animals. We found no evidence that the birds solved the task using an understanding of its causal properties, given that none of the birds passed the novel transfer tasks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Slovakia 1 <1%
Unknown 150 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 21%
Researcher 30 19%
Student > Bachelor 25 16%
Student > Master 21 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 4%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 22 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 67 42%
Psychology 31 19%
Environmental Science 7 4%
Neuroscience 6 4%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 30 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 July 2021.
All research outputs
#6,278,836
of 22,783,848 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#855
of 1,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,320
of 156,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,783,848 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,451 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.5. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 156,331 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them