Laterality of Eye Use by Bottlenose (Tursiops truncatus) and Rough-Toothed (Steno bredanensis) Dolphins While Viewing Predictable and Unpredictable Stimuli

Lilley, Malin K.; Vere, Amber J. de; Yeater, Deirdre

doi:10.46867/ijcp.2020.33.03.01

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(53 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…"Nutcrackers… did not significantly change their caching behaviour when observed by a pinyon jay." Vernouillet et al, 2021 "No significant correlations between degree of laterality and behavioral interest in the stimuli were found" Lilley et al, 2020 Ambiguous N = 16 (6%) "We also found no conclusive evidence that either the visual or the vibratory sensory modalities are critical for prey capture." Meza et al, 2021 "No systematic variations on space allocation were observed in neither experiment" Ribes-Iñesta et al, 2020…”

Section: Title Claimsmentioning

confidence: 70%

Reporting and interpreting non-significant results in animal cognition research

Farrar¹,

Vernouillet²,

Garcia‐Pelegrin³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How negative results are reported and interpreted following null hypothesis significance testing is often criticised. With small sample sizes and often low number of test trials, studies in animal cognition are prone to producing non-significant p-values, irrespective of whether this is a false negative or true negative result. Thus, we assessed how negative results are reported and interpreted across published articles in animal cognition and related fields. In this study, we manually extracted and classified how researchers report and interpret non-significant p-values, and examined the p-value distribution of these non-significant results. We found a large amount of heterogeneity in how researchers report non-significant p-values in the result sections of articles, and how they interpret them in the titles and abstracts. “No Effect” interpretations were common in the titles (84%), abstracts (64%), and results sections (41%) of papers, whereas “Non-Significant” interpretations were less common in the titles (0%) and abstracts (26%), but were present in the results (52%). Discussions of effect sizes were rare (<5% of articles). A p-value distribution analysis was consistent with research being performed with low power research to detect effect sizes of interest.

show abstract

Section: Title Claimsmentioning

confidence: 70%

Reporting and interpreting non-significant results in animal cognition research

Farrar¹,

Vernouillet²,

Garcia‐Pelegrin³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Results of these investigations did not confirm the hypothesis assuming a prevalent involvement of the left VF in the processing of negative/unfamiliar stimuli and of the right VF in the treatment of positive/familiar stimuli. Four investigations (i.e., studies [44,45,50,64]) reported, in fact, a greater role for the left VF in the processing of negative/unfamiliar stimuli, but three other studies [65,66,69] reported a prevalent involvement of the right VF in the elaboration of these stimuli. Furthermore, conflicting results were obtained in investigations dealing with visual laterality during predatory behavior in wild orcas, because Karenina et al [75] reported a prevalent involvement of the right VF and Chanvallon et al [76] a greater role of the left VF in this kind of activity.…”

Section: Investigations On Whales (And Other Cetaceans)mentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Most studies conducted in this animal category (i.e., [64][65][66][67]69,70]) evaluated with experimental methods visual laterality in the processing of positive/familiar vs. novel/negative stimuli or people. Results obtained in these investigations were at variance with the hypothesis assuming that the LVF (right hemisphere) may be involved in negative/unfamiliar stimulus processing and the RVF in the treatment of positive/familiar stimuli.…”

Section: Investigations On Dolphinsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Results obtained in these investigations were at variance with the hypothesis assuming that the LVF (right hemisphere) may be involved in negative/unfamiliar stimulus processing and the RVF in the treatment of positive/familiar stimuli. Only one study [70] found that dolphins were visually left-lateralized for negative stimuli, whereas three investigations [65,66,69] found that the RVF (left hemisphere) was preferentially used to explore negative unfamiliar stimuli. One further study [63] found that dolphins used their LVF to look at both familiar and unfamiliar stimuli and another [66] reported no clear visual laterality preference for familiar or unfamiliar stimuli.…”

Section: Investigations On Dolphinsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The interactions between all these factors were also stressed in two papers [75,76] aiming to analyze the interactions between visual laterality and the nature of the stimuli to be explored in wild orcas. Visual asymmetries in the processing of positive/familiar vs. negative/unfamiliar stimuli were assessed in 20 investigations conducted on horses (studies [44][45][46][47]50,55]), on dolphins (studies [64][65][66][67]69,70]), on whales and other cetaceans (studies [75,76]) and (as a tentative sub-category) on elephants (studies [55][56][57][58]61]). Results of these investigations did not confirm the hypothesis assuming a prevalent involvement of the left VF in the processing of negative/unfamiliar stimuli and of the right VF in the treatment of positive/familiar stimuli.…”

Section: Investigations On Whales (And Other Cetaceans)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mainly Visual Aspects of Emotional Laterality in Cognitively Developed and Highly Social Mammals—A Systematic Review

Gainotti

2024

Brain Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several studies have shown that emotions are asymmetrically represented in the human brain and have proposed three main models (the ‘right hemisphere hypothesis’, the ‘approach-withdrawal hypothesis’ and the ‘valence hypothesis’) that give different accounts of this emotional laterality. Furthermore, in recent years, many investigations have suggested that a similar emotional laterality may also exist in different animal taxa. However, results of a previous systematic review of emotional laterality in non-human primates have shown that some of these studies might be criticized from the methodological point of view and support only in part the hypothesis of a continuum in emotional laterality across vertebrates. The aim of the present review therefore consisted in trying to expand this survey to other cognitively developed and highly social mammals, focusing attention on mainly visual aspects of emotional laterality, in studies conducted on the animal categories of horses, elephants, dolphins and whales. The 35 studies included in the review took into account three aspects of mainly visual emotional laterality, namely: (a) visual asymmetries for positive/familiar vs. negative/novel stimuli; (b) lateral position preference in mother–offspring or other affiliative interactions; (c) lateral position preference in antagonistic interactions. In agreement with data obtained from human studies that have evaluated comprehension or expression of emotions at the facial or vocal level, these results suggest that a general but graded right-hemisphere prevalence in the processing of emotions can be found at the visual level in cognitively developed non-primate social mammals. Some methodological problems and some implications of these results for human psychopathology are briefly discussed.

show abstract