Abstract: Background The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. Methodology/Principal Findings We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. Conclusions Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.

Abstract: Two experiments examined the discrimination by pigeons of relative motion using computer-generated video stimuli. Using a go/no-go procedure, pigeons were tested with video stimuli in which the camera's perspective went either “around” or “through” an approaching object in a semi-realistic context. Experiment 1 found that pigeons could learn this discrimination and transfer it to videos composed from novel objects. Experiment 2 found that the order of the video's frames was critical to the discrimination of the videos. We hypothesize that the pigeons perceived a three-dimensional representation of the objects and the camera's relative motion and used this as the primary basis for discrimination. It is proposed that the pigeons might be able to form generalized natural categories for the different kinds of motions portrayed in the videos.

Abstract: Five hens, experienced in discrimination of two categories of multidimensional geometrical figures presented in fixed pairs in a simultaneous discrimination, were tested with familiar figures arranged as new pairs to assess the dependence of categorization performance on learned relational or configural cues. Test performance did not differ from training: relational or configural cues still influenced discrimination performance. It was suggested that – in accordance with exemplar theories – this influence depended on differences between pairs of probe exemplars that facilitate retrieval of learned category members. To test whether exemplar, feature or prototype theory was most suitable to explain categorization by chickens, the rates of pecking at exemplars were analysed using principal components analysis (PCA). The distribution of the exemplars' component loads on the single component obtained was examined in the light of the conditions dictated by the three types of theories on how representative category exemplars should be. The least constraining theory, i.e. the exemplar theory, was most suitable. Defining factors of classificatory behaviour are discussed with a special emphasis on the characteristics of category-defining stimulus attributes.

Abstract: Twelve pigeons ( Columba livia) were trained on a go/no-go schedule to discriminate between two kinds of movement patterns of dots, which to human observers appear to be “intentional” and “non-intentional” movements. In experiment 1, the intentional motion stimulus contained one dot (a “wolf”) that moved systematically towards another dot as though stalking it, and three distractors (“sheep”). The non-intentional motion stimulus consisted of four distractors but no stalker. Birds showed some improvement of discrimination as the sessions progressed, but high levels of discrimination were not reached. In experiment 2, the same birds were tested with different stimuli. The same parameters were used but the number of intentionally moving dots in the intentional motion stimulus was altered, so that three wolves stalked one sheep. Despite the enhanced difference of movement patterns, the birds did not show any further improvement in discrimination. However, birds for which the non-intentional stimulus was associated with reward showed a decline in discrimination. These results indicated that pigeons can discriminate between stimuli that do and do not contain an element that human observer see as moving intentionally. However, as no feature-positive effect was found in experiment 1, it is assumed that pigeons did not perceive or discriminate these stimuli on the basis that the intentional stimuli contained a feature that the non-intentional stimuli lacked, though the convergence seen in experiment 2 may have been an effective feature for the pigeons. Pigeons seem to be able to recognise some form of multiple simultaneously goal-directed motions, compared to random motions, as a distinctive feature, but do not seem to use simple “intentional” motion paths of two geometrical figures, embedded in random motions, as a feature whose presence or absence differentiates motion displays.

Abstract: Dogs were observed during controlled approaches by their owners and by strangers. Significant differences between the dogs' responses to their owners and their responses to strangers were found. These results supported the popular belief that dogs respond differently to different persons, and not merely to different situations in which persons are usually encountered.