Which Animals Pass the Mirror Test? A Critical Look at Self-Recognition Research

The mirror test, formally known as the mark test, is a behavioral assay used to assess whether an animal can recognize its own reflection. Developed from pioneering work with chimpanzees, the test involves placing a visible mark on an animal's body in a location that can only be seen with a mirror, then observing whether the animal touches or investigates the mark while looking at its reflection. Species that pass this test include great apes, Asian elephants, bottlenose dolphins, magpies, cleaner wrasse, and beluga whales, with recent evidence extending to gartersnakes using an odor-based version of the test. However, the mirror test has significant limitations, including questions about sensory appropriateness, ecological relevance, and whether passing the test truly indicates self-awareness. This article examines which animals have passed the mirror test, how the test works, its controversies, and what self-recognition research can and cannot tell us about animal cognition.

At a Glance: Species and Mirror Test Outcomes

The table below summarizes species that have been tested with the mirror test, their outcomes, and important caveats about study design and interpretation.

Understanding the Mirror Test and Its Origins

The mirror test was developed to provide a standardized behavioral measure of self-recognition. The core logic is straightforward: if an animal can use a mirror to locate and investigate a mark on its own body that it cannot otherwise see, the animal likely recognizes the reflection as itself instead of as another individual. The test typically involves three phases: baseline observation without a mirror, exposure to a mirror with no mark, and exposure to a mirror with a visible mark. Control conditions include transparent marks that are visible without a mirror and sham marks that are not visible at all.

The mark test requires two key behaviors. First, contingency testing involves the animal making movements and observing the mirror to understand the relationship between its actions and the reflection. Second, self-directed behavior involves the animal using the mirror to investigate parts of its own body, particularly the marked area. When an animal touches or attempts to remove a mark while looking in the mirror, and does not do so in control conditions, researchers consider the test passed.

The original studies with chimpanzees established the benchmark for what constitutes passing the test. Since then, researchers have applied the same basic protocol to a wide range of species with varying degrees of success. The test has become the most widely used behavioral measure of self-recognition in animals, but its application across diverse taxa has generated substantial debate about what the test actually measures and whether it is appropriate for all species.

Species That Have Passed the Mirror Test

Great Apes and Other Primates

Chimpanzees were the first species to pass the mirror test, and subsequent research confirmed that bonobos, orangutans, and gorillas also show mirror self-recognition. These findings established the expectation that self-recognition might be limited to species with advanced cognitive abilities. The evidence for great apes remains the most robust because multiple studies with different individuals and different protocols have produced consistent results.

Rhesus monkeys present a more complex picture. Untrained rhesus monkeys typically fail the standard mirror test, which created a puzzle for researchers because these monkeys are cognitively sophisticated in many other domains. A 2015 study found that rhesus monkeys displayed self-recognition behaviors toward a mirror after multimodal sensory-motor training, closing what researchers described as a prior gap in the evolutionary continuity of animal cognition. The training involved exposing monkeys to mirrors while providing simultaneous sensory feedback that linked their movements to the visual reflection. After this training, the monkeys showed mark-directed behavior consistent with passing the test. A 2017 commentary in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences discussed whether self-awareness can be taught, given that monkeys passed the mirror test again under similar training conditions.

The monkey studies raise an important question about what the mirror test measures. If monkeys can pass only after extensive training, does the test measure a capacity that exists naturally or a skill that can be acquired through learning? Researchers continue to debate whether trained passing reflects the same cognitive process as spontaneous passing in great apes.

Asian Elephants

Asian elephants have passed the mirror test in a controlled study using the standard mark test protocol. The elephants showed mark-directed behavior only when the mirror was present and did not investigate sham marks. This finding was significant because elephants are distantly related to primates and have large brains with complex social structures. The study suggested that self-recognition may have evolved independently in multiple lineages, possibly in response to similar social and ecological pressures.

Bottlenose Dolphins

Bottlenose dolphins passed the mirror test using a modified protocol that accounted for their anatomy. Because dolphins lack limbs that can touch marks on their bodies, researchers used marks on parts of the body that dolphins could inspect by rotating or positioning themselves near the mirror. The dolphins spent more time investigating marked areas when the mirror was present compared with control conditions. This adaptation of the protocol demonstrates that the mirror test can be modified for species with different body plans, but it also highlights the challenge of comparing results across species when the procedures differ.

Magpies and Other Corvids

Magpies passed the mirror test, making them the first bird species to show evidence of mirror self-recognition. The study used colored stickers placed on the birds' throats, a location visible only with a mirror. The magpies attempted to remove the stickers while looking at their reflections and did not respond to black stickers that matched their plumage. This finding was notable because birds have brain structures that are organized differently from mammalian brains, suggesting that self-recognition does not require a mammalian brain architecture.

However, subsequent research on other corvid species has produced different results. Carrion crows failed the mirror mark test in a 2020 study that tested 12 individuals. The crows showed no significant increase in mark-directed behavior compared with control conditions, despite being motivated to interact with visible marks when they could see them without a mirror. The researchers concluded that the crows failed the test and noted that their results replicated previous studies showing similar failures in corvids. The issue of mirror self-recognition in birds remains controversial because some corvid species pass while others fail.

A 2014 study on jackdaws raised additional concerns about methodological problems in avian mark-test studies, particularly regarding the use of stickers. The study suggested that some birds may respond to stickers because of tactile or visual properties unrelated to self-recognition, which could produce false positives or false negatives depending on the species and the specific materials used.

Cleaner Wrasse

The cleaner wrasse, a small reef fish, passed a modified version of the mark test in a 2019 study published in PLoS Biology. The fish showed behaviors that researchers interpreted as passing through all phases of the mark test: social reactions toward the reflection initially, repeated idiosyncratic behaviors toward the mirror, and frequent observation of their reflection. When provided with a colored tag in a modified mark test, the fish attempted to remove the mark by scraping their bodies in the presence of a mirror but showed no response toward transparent marks or to colored marks in the absence of a mirror.

This finding generated substantial controversy. The study authors themselves posed the central question: do we accept that these behavioral responses, which are taken as evidence of self-recognition in other species, lead to the conclusion that fish are self-aware? Or do we decide that these behavioral patterns have a basis in a cognitive process other than self-recognition and that fish do not pass the mark test? A 2020 commentary in Learning and Behavior suggested that reactions to the cleaner wrasse study revealed more about scientists' biases than about self-awareness, arguing that conclusions should be based on the corpus of data on a species instead of on a single test or preconceived expectations based on phylogeny alone.

A 2025 study in Scientific Reports found that mirror-naive cleaner fish achieved mirror self-recognition rapidly when marked with an ecologically relevant mark resembling an ectoparasite. The researchers reported previously undocumented differences in pre- and post-self-recognition behaviors, including exploratory behavior of the mirror's reflective properties after passing. They found parallels between the processing of self-recognition in humans and cleaner fish, suggesting that some aspects of self-awareness may be conserved across animal taxa.

Beluga Whales

A 2026 study conducted with a social group of four beluga whales at the New York Aquarium provided evidence for mirror self-recognition in this species. The whales were exposed to a two-way plexiglass mirror and a transparent control surface during baseline and post-mirror sessions. Two of the four whales, a subadult and her mother, exhibited a rich suite of self-directed behaviors at the mirror. Subsequent mark and control sham-mark tests were conducted with both whales, and the adult female showed mark-directed behavior at the mirror and passed one of the initial mark tests in a series of tests given. The researchers concluded that the self-directed behaviors exhibited by both whales and the mark-directed behavior by the adult female provided evidence for the capacity of mirror self-recognition in beluga whales.

Gartersnakes

A 2024 study in Proceedings of the Royal Society B conducted an odor-based mark test on two species of snakes: Eastern gartersnakes and ball pythons. These species have widely divergent ecologies, with gartersnakes being terrestrial foragers that communally brumate and ball pythons being semi-arboreal ambush predators that do not. The researchers found that gartersnakes, but not ball pythons, passed the test, and a range of control tests suggested the result was based on self-recognition. The gartersnakes are more social than ball pythons, supporting recent suggestions that social species are more likely to self-recognize. This study opened the door to examination of the ecology of self-recognition and suggested that this ability may evolve in response to species-specific ecological challenges, some of which may align with the complexity of social structures.

Species That Have Failed the Mirror Test

Carrion Crows

The 2020 study on carrion crows tested 12 individuals with the standard mirror mark test. There was no significant increase in mark-directed behavior in the mirror mark test compared with control conditions. The researchers found very few occasions of mark-directed behaviors and had to interpret them in the context of self-directed behavior more generally. The crows were motivated to interact with a mark when it was visible to them without the aid of a mirror, which confirmed that the failure was not due to a lack of motivation to remove marks. The researchers concluded that the crows failed the test and noted that their study added to the growing literature of corvids failing the mirror mark test, leaving the issue of mirror self-recognition in these birds controversial.

Giant Pandas

Giant pandas failed the mark test in a study that was notable because pandas are solitary animals. The failure of pandas supported the hypothesis that mirror self-recognition evolved only in highly social animals. This hypothesis has been influential in interpreting the pattern of results across species, with social species more likely to pass and solitary species more likely to fail.

Ball Pythons

In the 2024 snake study, ball pythons failed the odor-based mark test that gartersnakes passed. The researchers attributed this difference to the divergent ecologies of the two species, with the more social gartersnakes showing self-recognition and the more solitary ball pythons failing. This result supported the social hypothesis of self-recognition evolution.

Social Cichlid Fish

A Tanganyikan cichlid fish, Neolamprologus pulcher, failed the mark test in a 2018 study. This species was considered a good candidate for passing because the fish live in highly social groups and recognize conspecifics about as rapidly as primates. When the mirror was first exposed, the fish stayed in front of the mirror and exhibited aggressive behavior toward the mirror image, suggesting that the focal fish perceived the mirror image as an unfamiliar conspecific. The social responses decreased over the following days, as has generally been the case in animals with mirror self-recognition. However, after mark injection, there was no increase in scraping behavior or prolonged observation of the marked side. The results showed a lack of contingency checking and mark-directed behaviors, meaning that the fish failed to pass the mark test and did not recognize their self-image in the mirror.

How the Mirror Test Works: Protocol and Requirements

The standard mirror test follows a specific sequence of phases designed to control for alternative explanations. In the baseline phase, the animal is observed without a mirror to establish normal rates of self-directed behavior. In the mirror exposure phase, the animal is introduced to a mirror and observed for behaviors such as social responses toward the reflection, contingency testing, and self-directed behaviors. In the mark phase, a visible mark is applied to a location on the animal's body that can only be seen with the mirror. Control conditions include sham marks that are not visible and marks applied in locations that can be seen without a mirror.

The test requires that animals display contingency testing and self-directed behavior. Contingency testing involves the animal making movements and observing the mirror to understand the relationship between its actions and the reflection. Self-directed behavior involves the animal using the mirror to investigate parts of its own body. These behaviors may be difficult for humans to interpret in taxonomically divergent animals, especially those that lack the dexterity or limbs required to touch a mark. This limitation was explicitly noted in the cleaner wrasse study, where the researchers acknowledged that the established assay requires behaviors that may be difficult to interpret in animals with different body plans.

The mark test also requires that the animal be motivated to remove or investigate the mark. If a species does not naturally respond to marks on its body, a failure to pass the test may reflect a lack of motivation instead of a lack of self-recognition. The carrion crow study addressed this concern by demonstrating that the crows were motivated to interact with a visible mark, confirming that the failure was not due to a lack of motivation.

Controversies and Limitations of the Mirror Test

Sensory Appropriateness

The mirror test is fundamentally a visual test. It requires that the animal can see the mirror image clearly and can perceive the mark visually. For species that rely primarily on other senses, such as olfaction or audition, the visual mirror test may not be an appropriate measure of self-recognition. The 2024 snake study addressed this limitation by developing an odor-based version of the mark test, in which the mark was an odor that could only be detected through self-directed investigation. This adaptation suggests that self-recognition may be expressed through different sensory modalities depending on the species' ecology.

The modal-modular model of animal self-representation, proposed in a 2026 article, provides a framework for understanding these differences. The model analyzes self-representation along three functional dimensions: sensory input, represented bodily or agentive parameter, and motivational-behavioral context. Within this framework, self-recognition is not a single ability but a collection of modules that may vary across species based on their sensory ecology and behavioral needs. This perspective challenges the binary framing of whether a given species does or does not possess self-awareness.

Ecological Relevance

The mirror test may not be ecologically relevant for all species. An animal that has never encountered a mirror in its natural environment may not understand what a reflection is, regardless of whether it has some form of self-awareness. The cleaner wrasse study used an ecologically relevant mark resembling an ectoparasite, which is a natural stimulus for this species. The 2025 follow-up study found that cleaner fish achieved mirror self-recognition rapidly when marked with this ecologically relevant mark, implying self-awareness prior to mirror exposure. This finding suggests that the ecological relevance of the mark may be important for eliciting self-directed behavior.

The Social Hypothesis

The pattern of results across species has led researchers to propose that self-recognition may be linked to social complexity. Species that live in complex social groups, such as great apes, dolphins, elephants, and social birds, are more likely to pass the mirror test. Solitary species, such as giant pandas, tend to fail. The gartersnake study supported this hypothesis by showing that the more social species passed while the more solitary species failed. However, the social hypothesis has limitations. Some highly social species, such as carrion crows and social cichlid fish, have failed the test, suggesting that social complexity alone does not determine self-recognition ability.

What Does Passing the Test Actually Measure?

The most fundamental controversy surrounding the mirror test concerns what passing actually indicates. Some researchers argue that passing the test demonstrates self-awareness, which may have implications for the capacity to infer the mental states of others. Others argue that the test measures a more limited ability to recognize one's own reflection, which may not require self-awareness in the philosophical sense.

The cleaner wrasse study highlighted this controversy directly. The researchers asked whether the behavioral responses of the fish, which would be taken as evidence of self-recognition in other species, should lead to the conclusion that fish are self-aware. Alternatively, the behavioral patterns might have a basis in a cognitive process other than self-recognition, in which case the fish do not pass the mark test. If the former interpretation is correct, our understanding of animal intelligence must expand to include fish. If the latter interpretation is correct, our application and interpretation of the mark test as a measure of self-awareness must be reconsidered.

A 2026 commentary titled "A comparative perspective allows unpacking complex interpretations" suggests that comparative approaches can help resolve some of these interpretive challenges. By examining self-recognition across diverse species and contexts, researchers can identify which behaviors are consistent across taxa and which are species-specific.

Practical Assessment: Evaluating Mirror Test Claims

When evaluating claims that a species has passed the mirror test, several factors should be considered. These factors help distinguish robust findings from methodological artifacts or overinterpretations.

Step 1: Examine the Study Design

Review whether the study included appropriate control conditions. A well-designed mirror test should include sham marks that are not visible, marks in locations visible without a mirror, and baseline observations without a mirror. Studies that lack these controls are more susceptible to alternative explanations. The jackdaw study highlighted potential methodological problems in the use of stickers in avian mark-test studies, demonstrating that the specific materials used can affect results.

Step 2: Consider Sample Size and Replication

Studies with small sample sizes are more susceptible to individual variation and chance findings. The beluga whale study involved four whales, with two showing self-directed behaviors and one passing a mark test. While this provides evidence for the species, it also highlights the importance of replication across individuals and laboratories. The carrion crow study tested 12 individuals and found consistent failure, which strengthens the conclusion that this species does not pass the test.

Step 3: Assess Ecological and Sensory Appropriateness

Consider whether the test protocol is appropriate for the species being tested. A visual mark test may not be appropriate for species that rely primarily on olfaction, as demonstrated by the development of odor-based mark tests for snakes. Similarly, the mark itself should be ecologically relevant or at least motivating for the species. The cleaner wrasse studies used marks resembling ectoparasites, which are natural stimuli for this species.

Step 4: Evaluate Alternative Explanations

Consider whether the observed behaviors could be explained by processes other than self-recognition. For example, an animal might investigate a mark because it is attracted to the color or because the mark feels unusual, instead of because it recognizes the reflection as itself. Control conditions are designed to rule out these alternatives, but the effectiveness of these controls depends on the specific species and protocol.

Step 5: Consider the Broader Evidence Base

A single study, regardless of its quality, provides limited evidence. The 2020 commentary on the cleaner wrasse study argued that scientists should base conclusions about species' abilities on the corpus of data on that species instead of on a single test or preconceived expectations based on phylogeny alone. When evaluating mirror test claims, consider whether multiple studies with different protocols have produced consistent results.

Records and Measurements in Mirror Test Research

Mirror test research relies on systematic behavioral observation and measurement. Researchers typically record the frequency and duration of specific behaviors, including social responses toward the reflection, contingency testing behaviors, self-directed behaviors, and mark-directed behaviors. These measurements are compared across conditions to determine whether the presence of a mirror and a mark changes behavior.

Key measurements include the latency to first mark-directed behavior, the frequency of mark-directed behaviors per unit time, and the total duration of mark-directed behavior. Researchers also record the specific body parts involved in mark-directed behaviors, which can help distinguish genuine self-recognition from incidental contact. Video recording is standard practice to allow independent coding by multiple observers and to permit reanalysis.

The cleaner wrasse studies added a temporal dimension to these measurements by observing the exact timing of self-recognition in individuals. The 2025 study reported previously undocumented differences in pre- and post-self-recognition behaviors, including post-self-recognition exploratory behavior of the mirror's reflective properties. These detailed observations provide insight into the cognitive processes underlying the behavioral responses.

Common Failure Patterns in Mirror Test Studies

Failure Due to Inappropriate Protocol

Some species fail the mirror test because the protocol is not appropriate for their sensory ecology or body plan. The standard visual mark test requires that the animal can see the mirror and the mark, which may not be possible for species with limited visual acuity or different sensory priorities. The development of odor-based mark tests for snakes represents an attempt to address this limitation.

Failure Due to Lack of Motivation

Some species may fail the mirror test because they are not motivated to remove marks from their bodies. The carrion crow study addressed this concern by demonstrating that the crows were motivated to interact with a visible mark, confirming that the failure was not due to a lack of motivation. Without this control, a failure could be misinterpreted as evidence against self-recognition when it actually reflects a lack of motivation.

Failure Due to Social Responses

Some species respond to their mirror reflection as if it were another individual, showing aggressive or affiliative behaviors toward the reflection. The social cichlid fish study observed this pattern, with the fish exhibiting aggressive behavior toward the mirror image before these responses decreased over time. While the decrease in social responses is consistent with the pattern seen in animals that eventually pass the test, the fish did not show mark-directed behaviors.

Failure Due to Individual Variation

Individual variation within a species can produce inconsistent results. The beluga whale study found that two of four whales showed self-directed behaviors, and only one passed a mark test. This variation raises questions about whether the capacity for self-recognition is present in all individuals of a species or only some. It also highlights the importance of testing multiple individuals before drawing conclusions about a species.

Welfare and Safety Context

Mirror test research raises welfare considerations that researchers must address. The application of marks to animals' bodies must be done in a way that minimizes distress and does not cause pain or injury. Marks should be removable and should not interfere with the animal's normal behavior. The cleaner wrasse studies used colored tags that could be removed by the fish, and the snakes in the odor-based study were exposed to odors that were not harmful.

The mirror itself can cause stress in some species, particularly when animals initially perceive their reflection as another individual. The social cichlid fish study observed aggressive behavior toward the mirror image, which could be stressful for the fish. Researchers should monitor animals for signs of distress during mirror exposure and should provide opportunities for animals to avoid the mirror if they choose.

The broader question of what mirror test results mean for animal welfare is also relevant. If passing the mirror test indicates self-awareness, this may have implications for how we treat the species that pass. The 2025 cleaner fish study explicitly noted that whether animals are self-aware has important implications for our approaches to both animal cognition and animal welfare. However, the relationship between self-recognition and welfare is complex, and the absence of self-recognition does not necessarily mean that an animal does not experience pain or distress.

Professional Escalation Criteria

Researchers and practitioners working with animals should know when to escalate concerns about mirror test findings or animal welfare. Escalation is appropriate when a study reports a novel species passing the mirror test without adequate replication, when a study lacks appropriate control conditions, or when the interpretation of results extends beyond what the data support.

Escalation is also appropriate when mirror exposure causes significant distress in animals. Signs of distress may include persistent attempts to attack the reflection, self-injury, refusal to eat, or other changes in normal behavior. In these cases, the mirror should be removed and the animal should be monitored until behavior returns to baseline.

For professionals evaluating mirror test claims for practical applications, such as animal welfare assessments or cognitive enrichment programs, the key is to distinguish between established findings and preliminary results. Established findings, such as self-recognition in great apes, have been replicated across multiple studies and laboratories. Preliminary results, such as the cleaner wrasse findings, require additional replication and careful interpretation before they should inform practical decisions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the mirror test and how does it work?

The mirror test, also called the mark test, places a visible mark on an animal's body in a location that can only be seen with a mirror. If the animal touches or investigates the mark while looking at its reflection, and does not do so in control conditions, researchers consider the test passed. The test requires that animals display contingency testing, where they make movements and observe the reflection, and self-directed behavior, where they use the mirror to investigate their own bodies.

Which animals have passed the mirror test?

Species that have passed the mirror test include chimpanzees and other great apes, Asian elephants, bottlenose dolphins, magpies, cleaner wrasse, beluga whales, and gartersnakes using an odor-based version of the test. Rhesus monkeys have passed after multimodal sensory-motor training. The evidence base varies across species, with great apes having the most robust support and cleaner wrasse being the most controversial.

Why did rhesus monkeys need training to pass the mirror test?

Untrained rhesus monkeys typically fail the standard mirror test. A 2015 study found that rhesus monkeys displayed self-recognition behaviors toward a mirror after multimodal sensory-motor training. The training linked the monkeys' movements to the visual reflection, which may have helped them understand the relationship between their actions and the mirror image. This finding raises questions about whether the test measures a natural capacity or a skill that can be acquired through learning.

Did the cleaner wrasse really pass the mirror test?

The cleaner wrasse passed a modified version of the mark test in a 2019 study, but the finding is controversial. The fish showed behaviors that researchers interpreted as passing through all phases of the mark test, including attempting to remove colored tags by scraping their bodies in the presence of a mirror. Some researchers argue that these behaviors reflect ecological foraging instead of self-recognition, while others argue that the behavioral responses should be interpreted consistently across species.

Why do some corvids pass the mirror test while others fail?

Magpies passed the mirror test, but carrion crows failed in a 2020 study that tested 12 individuals. The researchers found no significant increase in mark-directed behavior in the mirror mark test compared with control conditions. The issue of mirror self-recognition in birds remains controversial because some corvid species pass while others fail, and methodological problems with stickers in avian mark-test studies have been identified.

What is the odor-based mark test for snakes?

The odor-based mark test adapts the standard mirror test for species that rely primarily on olfaction. In a 2024 study, Eastern gartersnakes passed the test while ball pythons failed. The gartersnakes are more social than ball pythons, supporting the hypothesis that social species are more likely to self-recognize. This study was the first to attempt an odor-based mark test in reptiles.

Does passing the mirror test mean an animal is self-aware?

This is a matter of ongoing debate. Some researchers argue that passing the test demonstrates self-awareness, while others argue that the test measures a more limited ability to recognize one's own reflection. The cleaner wrasse study posed this question directly, asking whether the behavioral responses of the fish should lead to the conclusion that fish are self-aware or whether the behaviors have a basis in a cognitive process other than self-recognition.

What are the main limitations of the mirror test?

The mirror test has several limitations. It is a visual test that may not be appropriate for species that rely primarily on other senses. The test requires that animals be motivated to remove marks, which may not be true for all species. The test may not be ecologically relevant for species that never encounter mirrors in their natural environments. Finally, the test produces a binary result that may not capture the complexity of self-representation across species.

Related Articles

• RT-qPCR Experiments: Design Choices That Affect Interpretation
• RNA-seq Library Preparation: Study Design and Quality Control
• Bioinformatics Portfolio: Projects That Demonstrate Real Research Judgment
• Research Authorship: Discussing Credit, Contributions, and Order Before Submission
• Single-Nucleus RNA Sequencing: Study Design, Workflow, and Interpretation

References and Further Reading

• NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
• PubMed. National Library of Medicine.
• Monkeys pass the mirror test after training.. Science China. Life sciences, 2015.
• If a fish can pass the mark test, what are the implications for consciousness and self-awareness testing in animals?. PLoS biology, 2019.
• Animal cognition: monkeys pass the mirror test.. Current biology : CB, 2015.
• Can self-awareness be taught? Monkeys pass the mirror test-again.. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2017.
• A social cichlid fish failed to pass the mark test.. Animal cognition, 2018.
• Carrion crows (Corvus corone corone) fail the mirror mark test yet again.. Journal of comparative psychology (Washington, D.C. : 1983), 2020.
• A fish eye view of the mirror test.. Learning & behavior, 2020.
• Olfactory self-recognition in two species of snake.. Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2024.
• Evidence for mirror self-recognition in beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas).. 2026.
• The modal-modular model of animal self-representation: a comparative and operational framework.. 2026.
• A comparative perspective allows unpacking complex interpretations.. 2026.
• Rapid self-recognition ability in the cleaner fish.. 2025.
• Brain mechanisms underlying self-other distinction for bodily self-recognition.. 2026.
• Animals that pass the mirror test are self-aware and thus can infer the states of mind of another individual Yes Can Animals
• Mirror, mirror on the wall which is the most heuristic theory of them all? A response to Mitchell☆. 1993.
• Acute fluoxetine exposure alters crab anxiety-like behaviour, but not aggressiveness. Scientific Reports, 2016.
• Self-recognition in primates: further reflections create a hall of mirrors. 1995.
• Reflections of consciousness: The mirror test. Aaai Fall Symposium Technical Report, 2007.
• Mirror-mark tests performed on jackdaws reveal potential methodological problems in the use of stickers in avian mark-test studies. Plos One, 2014.

This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.