CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 258Primate Behavior and EcologyMemory Processes and InfluencesChild and Animal Learning Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Western Scrub-Jays Anticipate Future Needs Independently of Their Current Motivational State

Open access
Correia, Sérgio P.C., Dickinson, Anthony, Clayton, Nicola S.·2007·Current Biology
DOI 10.1016/j.cub.2007.03.063
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Planning for the future has been considered to be a uniquely human trait [1-3]. However, recent studies challenge this hypothesis by showing that food-caching Western scrub-jays (Aphelocoma californica) can relate their previous experience as thieves to the possibility of future cache theft by another bird [4], are sensitive to the state of their caches at recovery ([5] and S. De Kort, S.P.C.C., D. Alexis, A.D., and N.S.C., unpublished data), and can plan for tomorrow's breakfast [6]. Although these results suggest that scrub-jays are capable of future planning, the degree to which these birds act independently of their current motivational state is a matter of contention. The Bischof-Köhler hypothesis [1] holds that nonhuman animals cannot anticipate and act toward the satisfaction of a future need not currently experienced or cued by their present motivational state. Using specific satiety to control for the jays' current and future motivational states, here we specifically test this hypothesis by dissociating current and future motivational states. We report that Western scrub-jays anticipate the recovery of their caches, as well as their own future needs, by acting independently of their current motivational state and immediate needs. The fact that the birds act in favor of a future need as opposed to the current one challenges the hypothesis that this ability is unique to humans.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cub.2007.03.063

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 22 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 257

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Correia, S. P. C., Dickinson, A., & Clayton, N. S.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Clayton, Nicola S.
ORCID
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-05
Volume
17
Issue
10
Pages
856-861
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cub.2007.03.063
OpenAlex
W2004026195
Cited by
258
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 23
FWCI
21.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Current Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/D000335/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
western scrub-jay, Aphelocoma californica, future planning, food caching, cache recovery, motivational states, satiety, animal cognition
MeSH terms
Animals, Appetite, Cues, Feeding Behavior, Humans, Motivation, Time Perception, Passeriformes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review