Objective. To compare the measurement of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) by immunofluorescence and by 6 different commercial enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) in clearly defined patient groups and serum samples. Methods. Serum samples were derived from 3 sources: 1) patients with a known clinical diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) (group 1), 2) sera with known monospecific ANA reactivity (group 2), and 3) sera from consecutive patients for whom ANA testing had been ordered (group 3). Each of these sera was tested for the presence of ANA by immunofluorescence on HEp‐2 cells, and by using each of 6 commercially available ELISA ANA kits. Results. In patients with known clinical SLE, 88% were ANA positive by immunofluorescence. Positivity with the different ELISAs ranged from 62% to 90%. While most ELISAs successfully detected antibodies to SS‐A, RNP, and Sm, there were significant differences between assays in the detection of anticentromere antibodies and anti‐DNA. Measurement of ANA in consecutive patients for whom an ANA test was requested showed that, generally, those assays with high sensitivity for detection of SLE had a high false‐positive rate, whereas those assays with a low false‐positive rate failed to identify some patients with a clinical diagnosis of SLE. Conclusion. There are significant differences in the detection of ANA by immunofluorescence and different ELISA kits. Agreement between different assays is generally marginal. When ordering and interpreting an ANA test, the clinician must be familiar with the specific assay being used to measure ANA and the differences between the various ANA assays.

The ability to inhibit unproductive motor responses triggered by salient stimuli is a fundamental inhibitory skill. Such motor self-regulation is thought to underlie more complex cognitive mechanisms, like self-control. Recently, a large-scale study, comparing 36 species, found that absolute brain size best predicted competence in motor inhibition, with great apes as the best performers. This was challenged when three Corvus species (corvids) were found to parallel great apes despite having much smaller absolute brain sizes. However, new analyses suggest that it is the number of pallial neurons, and not absolute brain size per se, that correlates with levels of motor inhibition. Both studies used the cylinder task, a detour-reaching test where food is presented behind a transparent barrier. We tested four species from the order Psittaciformes (parrots) on this task. Like corvids, many parrots have relatively large brains, high numbers of pallial neurons, and solve challenging cognitive tasks. Nonetheless, parrots performed markedly worse than the Corvus species in the cylinder task and exhibited strong learning effects in performance and response times. Our results suggest either that parrots are poor at controlling their motor impulses, and hence that pallial neuronal numbers do not always correlate with such skills, or that the widely used cylinder task may not be a good measure of motor inhibition.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10071-017-1131-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Graphical abstract

Economic decision-making involves weighing up differently beneficial alternatives to maximise payoff. This sometimes requires the ability to forego one’s desire for immediate satisfaction. This ability is considered cognitively challenging because it not only requires inhibiting impulses, but also evaluating expected outcomes in order to decide whether waiting is worthwhile. We tested four parrot species in a token exchange task. The subjects were first trained to exchange three types of tokens for a food item of low, medium, and high value and successfully learned to exchange these in an order according to their value. Subsequently, they were confronted with a choice between a food item and a token that could be exchanged for higher-quality food. In additional control conditions however, choosing a token led to an equal or lower payoff. Individuals of all species were capable of deciding economically, yet only large macaws outperformed the other species in one of the crucial controls. For some individuals, particularly African grey parrots, the token apparently had an intrinsic value, which prevented them from choosing economically in some control conditions and which should be considered as potentially confounding by future token exchange studies.

Systematic, broad phylogenetic comparisons of diverse cognitive abilities are essential to understand cognitive evolution. Few studies have examined multiple skills comparatively, using identical tasks across species. Previous research centered on primates, but recent evidence suggests that complex cognition may have evolved in distantly related taxa. We administered the tasks of the primate cognition test battery (PCTB) to 4 parrot species for a first direct comparison with primates. The parrots did not perform significantly worse than the previously tested primates in all but one of the test scales, but remained at chance levels throughout. Chimpanzees outperformed them in the physical but not the social domain. No differences between the domains nor across the parrot species were detected. It remains questionable whether the chance level performance reflects the parrots’ cognitive capacity or results from task constraints, which would limit the suitability of PCTB for phylogenetic comparisons. Possible implications for the field are discussed.