Cited by 71Primate Behavior and EcologyCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skillsChild and Animal Learning Development

Elephants have a nose for quantity

Open access
Plotnik, Joshua M., Brubaker, Daniel L., Dale, Rachel, Tiller, Lydia N., Mumby, Hannah S., Clayton, Nicola S.·2019·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Significance: Although many animal species have demonstrated an ability to differentiate between more and less when presented with different amounts of food, they have done so primarily using vision. In this study, by contrast, elephants showed that they can detect differences between various quantities of food using only their sense of smell. Thus, elephants may be unique in their use of olfaction in cognitive tasks. This research suggests that it is important for psychologists to incorporate into experimental designs the ways in which different animals interact with their environment using all of their senses. Such species-specific paradigms would ensure comparisons about cognition across taxa are fair and relevant.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1818284116

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Elephants are likely to have much richer olfactory experiences than humans but less richly detailed visual experiences.

    “For example, given their sensory abilities, elephants are likely to have much richer olfactory experiences than humans but less richly detailed visual experiences [14–16].”

    From Dimensions of Animal Consciousness (2020) · cites this paper as [15]

    The paper’s discussion of elephant sensory abilities (page not provided) says that elephants use vision mainly to complement their more dominant senses, including smell. Its Significance section shows that elephants can distinguish food quantities by smell alone. Neither passage compares the richness of elephants’ olfactory experiences with humans’ or establishes that their visual experiences are less detailed. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Other studies on elephant quantity discrimination have found different results, which were consistent with the accumulator model.

    “However, other studies on elephant quantity discrimination have found different results, which were consistent with the accumulator model (Perdue et al., 2012; Plotnik et al., 2019; Snyder et al., 2021).”

    From Do elephants really never forget? What we know about elephant memory and a call for further investigation (2025) · cites this paper as Plotnik et al., 2019

    The Results and Discussion report differing findings across elephant quantity-discrimination studies and say this study’s results follow an approximation model and Weber’s law. Our copy does not identify that model as the accumulator model, so it supports the contrast in results but not the specific model attribution. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Asian elephants have demonstrated the ability to discriminate between different quantities of food using only olfactory cues.

    “In addition, Asian elephants have demonstrated the ability to discriminate between different quantities of food using only olfactory cues (Plotnik et al., 2019).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Dehaene S (1997) The Number Sense (Oxford Univ Press, New York).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Plotnik, J. M., Brubaker, D. L., Dale, R., Tiller, L. N., Mumby, H. S., & Clayton, N. S.
Affiliations
  • City University of New York (US)
  • Think Elephants International, New York, NY 10017;
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2019-06-03
Volume
116
Issue
25
Pages
12566-12571
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2948587458
Cited by
71
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 3
FWCI
15.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo
Funders
  • Earthwatch Institute
  • Royal Society
  • National Research Council of Thailand
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
elephants, numerical cognition, quantity discrimination, olfaction, object-choice task, ratio effect, comparative cognition, animal cognition
MeSH terms
Animals, Choice Behavior, Cognition, Elephants, Female, Male, Odorants, Smell, Task Performance and Analysis

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