Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40337356›Full record

ArticleOpen mind : discoveries in cognitive science2025

Spontaneous Encoding of Event Roles in Hominids.

Sarah Brocard, Pavel V Voinov, Balthasar Bickel, Klaus Zuberbühler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sarah BrocardDepartment of Comparative Cognition, Institute of Biology, University of Neuchatel, Neuchatel, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8641-7357
Pavel V VoinovCenter for the Evolutionary Origins of Human Behavior (EHUB), Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1867-3284
Balthasar BickelInstitute for the Interdisciplinary Study of Language Evolution (ISLE), University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9087-0565
Klaus ZuberbühlerDepartment of Comparative Cognition, Institute of Biology, University of Neuchatel, Neuchatel, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8378-088X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When observing social interactions, humans rapidly and spontaneously encode events in terms of agents, patients and causal relations. This propensity can be made visible empirically with the switch cost paradigm, a reaction time experiment and well-established tool of cognitive psychology. We adapted the paradigm for non-human primates to test whether non-linguistic animals encoded event roles in the same way. Both human and non-human participants were requested to attend to different social interactions between two artificially coloured (blue or green) actors and to target the actor masked by a specified colour (e.g., blue), regardless of her role. We found that when we switched the targeted colour mask from agents to patients (or vice versa) the processing time significantly increased in both hominid species (i.e., human and chimpanzee), suggesting that event roles were spontaneously encoded and subsequently interfered with our simplistic colour search task. We concluded that the propensity to encode social events in terms of agents and patients was a common feature of hominid cognition, as demonstrated in several human and one chimpanzee participant, pointing towards an evolutionarily old and phylogenetically shared cognitive mechanism central to language processing.

Indexed as

comparative cognitionevent cognitionevent roleslanguage evolution

Identifiers

PMID40337356
PMCPMC12058332

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.