Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(2)
Exact(19)
We only considered exchanges between extracted tools, rather than between the tabletop tool and an extracted tool, since by definition the latter swaps would always be positive.
We investigated whether subjects attended to the position of the food by examining whether they first probed for tools or food with the tabletop tool in different conditions.
We investigated whether subjects attended to the position of the food by examining whether their first probe with the tabletop tool was aimed at tools or at food.
All three inexperienced crows obtained food with the tabletop tool where this was possible, but failed in all tasks where tools had to be extracted (Table 2).
For all other subjects, the tabletop tool was 5 cm long, medium-length tools were 12.5 cm, and the longest tools were 25 cm; the medium and long tools had four (evenly-spaced) cross-pieces, and the tabletop tool had two onee at each end).
Barry probed with the tabletop tool, but Nalik used that tool to extract another and probed the empty tube with it; this was the only occasion when an inexperienced bird used the available tabletop tool to extract a tool that was then used to probe into the food tube.
Similar(41)
Subjects also interacted with the tabletop tools on fewer Length-Only trials, indicating that they perceived this condition as distinct.
It is likely that they recognized that tools were now within beak range and therefore the attractiveness of the tabletop tools was reduced (although not entirely eliminated).
Tabletop tools were placed midway between the tool- and food-frames, rather than closer to the food apparatus as in Experiment 1.
Two tabletop tools (5 and 7 cm long), also made of dowel and with a crosspiece at either end, were provided on every trial; only the 7 cm tool was long enough to reach food or other tools.
During Sequential trials the tabletop tools had played an integral role in success (by extracting food or tools) on all conditions, whereas in Length-Only trials they were only suitable for retrieving the food on a third of the trials.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com