Budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) perceive the Müller-Lyer illusion.

Watanabe, S.

doi:10.1037/xan0000321

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[23]); however, this type of research is completely lacking in animals. To our knowledge, only a handful studies were done on young animals [33,[35][36][37][38] and only one of these has been on mammals [34], which actually found a phenomenon similar to that in humans. Thus, one of our suggestions for future studies is to consider the age of the subjects, not mix immature or ageing animals, but use the opportunity and extend our knowledge by reporting the results of these individuals separately.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also, we focused on studies that tested adult animals since studies on humans suggest that the emergence of susceptibility to some illusions changes across the life span [29][30][31][32]. In addition, only a few studies have been done on young animals [33][34][35][36][37][38]. We also limited the analysis to experimental studies published in the English language.…”

Section: (B) Inclusion Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Response to geometrical visual illusions in non-human animals: a meta-analysis

Bánszegi,

Rosetti,

Olivares

et al. 2024

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual illusions have been studied in many non-human species, spanning a wide range of biological and methodological variables. While early reviews have proved useful in providing an overview of the field, they have not been accompanied by quantitative analysis to systematically evaluate the contribution of biological and methodological moderators on the proportion of illusory choice. In the current meta-analytical study, we confirm that geometrical visual illusion perception is a general phenomenon among non-human animals. Additionally, we found that studies testing birds report stronger illusion perception compared to other classes, as do those on animals with lateral-positioned eyes compared to animals with forward-facing eyes. In terms of methodological choices, we found a positive correlation between the number of trials during training or testing and the effect sizes, while studies with larger samples report smaller effect sizes. Despite studies that trained animals with artificial stimuli showing larger effect sizes compared with those using spontaneous testing with naturalistic stimuli, like food, we found more recent studies prefer spontaneous choice over training. We discuss the challenges and bottlenecks in this area of study, which, if addressed, could lead to more successful advances in the future.

show abstract