Array
(
[field_link_esterno_news] => Array
(
[#theme] => field
[#weight] => -1
[#title] => Link esterno news
[#access] => 1
[#label_display] => above
[#view_mode] => teaser
[#language] => und
[#field_name] => field_link_esterno_news
[#field_type] => text_long
[#field_translatable] => 0
[#entity_type] => node
[#bundle] => box_lancio_news
[#object] => stdClass Object
(
[vid] => 515980
[uid] => 2032
[title] => Unipd research team studies “traps of the mind” in fish
[log] =>
[status] => 1
[comment] => 0
[promote] => 1
[sticky] => 0
[nid] => 126991
[type] => box_lancio_news
[language] => it
[created] => 1768827666
[changed] => 1768827666
[tnid] => 0
[translate] => 0
[revision_timestamp] => 1768827666
[revision_uid] => 2032
[body] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] =>
Studying reasoning fallacies in animals, or “traps of the mind,” can help us understand what is “typically” human and the evolutionary origins of certain cognitive processes. Research on primates and birds has so far shown mixed results: macaques seem to struggle—like us humans—when faced with this statistical puzzle, while pigeons appear to learn quickly to switch their initial choice and optimize their chances of success. This led researchers to believe that the cognitive processes underlying such reasoning fallacies were mainly linked to the complex neuro-cognitive systems of primates (human and non-human).
A study by the University of Padua, published in the journal Cognition and conducted by Christian Agrillo and Alessandra Pecunioso of the Department of General Psychology, opens up new perspectives by testing several specimens of ghost fish (Kryptopterus bicirrhis). When presented with a computerized version of the Monty Hall problem, the fish—like humans and macaques—tend to stick with their initial choice rather than switch to the second (and more advantageous) remaining option. Moreover, the fish continue to confirm their initial choice even after 200 trials, despite the reward being delivered more often when they switch their choice.
These “traps of the mind,” known as cognitive fallacies, arise from an incorrect assessment of the probability that a given event will occur or from irrational responses accompanying decision-making. One of the most famous examples is the Monty Hall paradox, a probability game in which most people tend to choose the less advantageous option.
“Humans subjected to this test make errors in calculating probabilities, but not only that: it has been shown that they sometimes stick with their initial choice out of fear of seeing that a last-minute switch turned out to be disadvantageous, thus perceiving a greater ‘loss’ compared to the starting condition. In addition, there is a sort of illusion of greater control over events at the moment of the first choice, when it is made without interference from the game host. We cannot rule out that certain ‘emotional’ responses also occur in animals, but we believe that a more plausible explanation is the difficulty fish have in estimating events involving conditional probability,” explains Christian Agrillo, corresponding author of the study and professor at the Department of General Psychology at the University of Padua.
“It is not the first time that animals phylogenetically distant from us have shown interesting convergences in perceptual and cognitive processes,” adds Alessandra Pecunioso, co-author of the study and researcher at the University of Padua. “The fact that a fish makes a sub-optimal choice in the Monty Hall game suggests that the cognitive processes underlying so-called reasoning fallacies can also occur with a completely different organization of neural circuits from ours, to the point of being present in animals without a cerebral cortex.”
[summary] =>
[format] => 2
[safe_value] =>
Studying reasoning fallacies in animals, or “traps of the mind,” can help us understand what is “typically” human and the evolutionary origins of certain cognitive processes. Research on primates and birds has so far shown mixed results: macaques seem to struggle—like us humans—when faced with this statistical puzzle, while pigeons appear to learn quickly to switch their initial choice and optimize their chances of success. This led researchers to believe that the cognitive processes underlying such reasoning fallacies were mainly linked to the complex neuro-cognitive systems of primates (human and non-human).
A study by the University of Padua, published in the journal Cognition and conducted by Christian Agrillo and Alessandra Pecunioso of the Department of General Psychology, opens up new perspectives by testing several specimens of ghost fish (Kryptopterus bicirrhis). When presented with a computerized version of the Monty Hall problem, the fish—like humans and macaques—tend to stick with their initial choice rather than switch to the second (and more advantageous) remaining option. Moreover, the fish continue to confirm their initial choice even after 200 trials, despite the reward being delivered more often when they switch their choice.
These “traps of the mind,” known as cognitive fallacies, arise from an incorrect assessment of the probability that a given event will occur or from irrational responses accompanying decision-making. One of the most famous examples is the Monty Hall paradox, a probability game in which most people tend to choose the less advantageous option.
“Humans subjected to this test make errors in calculating probabilities, but not only that: it has been shown that they sometimes stick with their initial choice out of fear of seeing that a last-minute switch turned out to be disadvantageous, thus perceiving a greater ‘loss’ compared to the starting condition. In addition, there is a sort of illusion of greater control over events at the moment of the first choice, when it is made without interference from the game host. We cannot rule out that certain ‘emotional’ responses also occur in animals, but we believe that a more plausible explanation is the difficulty fish have in estimating events involving conditional probability,” explains Christian Agrillo, corresponding author of the study and professor at the Department of General Psychology at the University of Padua.
“It is not the first time that animals phylogenetically distant from us have shown interesting convergences in perceptual and cognitive processes,” adds Alessandra Pecunioso, co-author of the study and researcher at the University of Padua. “The fact that a fish makes a sub-optimal choice in the Monty Hall game suggests that the cognitive processes underlying so-called reasoning fallacies can also occur with a completely different organization of neural circuits from ours, to the point of being present in animals without a cerebral cortex.”
[safe_summary] =>
)
)
)
[field_date_box_lancio_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => 2026-01-19T00:00:00
[timezone] => Europe/Paris
[timezone_db] => Europe/Paris
[date_type] => date
)
)
)
[field_etichetta_box_lancio_news] => Array
(
)
[field_img_box_lancio_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[fid] => 145481
[uid] => 2032
[filename] => n_pesce_rosso.jpg
[uri] => public://n_pesce_rosso_0.jpg
[filemime] => image/jpeg
[filesize] => 12050
[status] => 1
[timestamp] => 1768827666
[type] => image
[field_file_image_alt_text] => Array
(
)
[field_file_image_title_text] => Array
(
)
[field_folder] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[tid] => 2048
)
)
)
[metadata] => Array
(
[height] => 227
[width] => 677
)
[height] => 227
[width] => 677
[alt] => fish
[title] =>
)
)
)
[field_link_alla_news] => Array
(
)
[field_link_esterno_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] =>
[format] =>
[safe_value] =>
)
)
)
[field_pagina_associata] => Array
(
)
[field_link_etichetta] => Array
(
)
[field_abstract_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => University of Padua research team identifies the cognitive fallacy underlying the Monty Hall paradox not only in primates but also in fish
[format] =>
[safe_value] => University of Padua research team identifies the cognitive fallacy underlying the Monty Hall paradox not only in primates but also in fish
)
)
)
[field_allegato_news] => Array
(
)
[field_categorie_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[tid] => 2296
)
)
)
[field_pub_date] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => 2026-01-19T00:00:00
[value2] => 2027-01-19T00:00:00
[timezone] => Europe/Paris
[timezone_db] => Europe/Paris
[date_type] => date
)
)
)
[field_layout_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => single
)
)
)
[field_testo_opzionale_news] => Array
(
)
[field_url_en_page] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => /news/team-ricerca-unipd-studia-tranelli-mente-nei-pesci
[format] =>
[safe_value] => /news/team-ricerca-unipd-studia-tranelli-mente-nei-pesci
)
)
)
[field_url_en_page_label] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => Italian version
[format] =>
[safe_value] => Italian version
)
)
)
[path] => Array
(
[pathauto] => 1
)
[name] => francesca.forzan
[picture] => 0
[data] => b:0;
[num_revisions] => 1
[current_revision_id] => 515980
[is_current] => 1
[is_pending] =>
[revision_moderation] =>
[entity_view_prepared] => 1
)
[#items] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] =>
[format] =>
[safe_value] =>
)
)
[#formatter] => text_default
[0] => Array
(
[#markup] =>
)
)
[body] => Array
(
[#theme] => field
[#weight] => 0
[#title] => Body
[#access] => 1
[#label_display] => hidden
[#view_mode] => teaser
[#language] => und
[#field_name] => body
[#field_type] => text_with_summary
[#field_translatable] => 0
[#entity_type] => node
[#bundle] => box_lancio_news
[#object] => stdClass Object
(
[vid] => 515980
[uid] => 2032
[title] => Unipd research team studies “traps of the mind” in fish
[log] =>
[status] => 1
[comment] => 0
[promote] => 1
[sticky] => 0
[nid] => 126991
[type] => box_lancio_news
[language] => it
[created] => 1768827666
[changed] => 1768827666
[tnid] => 0
[translate] => 0
[revision_timestamp] => 1768827666
[revision_uid] => 2032
[body] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] =>
Studying reasoning fallacies in animals, or “traps of the mind,” can help us understand what is “typically” human and the evolutionary origins of certain cognitive processes. Research on primates and birds has so far shown mixed results: macaques seem to struggle—like us humans—when faced with this statistical puzzle, while pigeons appear to learn quickly to switch their initial choice and optimize their chances of success. This led researchers to believe that the cognitive processes underlying such reasoning fallacies were mainly linked to the complex neuro-cognitive systems of primates (human and non-human).
A study by the University of Padua, published in the journal Cognition and conducted by Christian Agrillo and Alessandra Pecunioso of the Department of General Psychology, opens up new perspectives by testing several specimens of ghost fish (Kryptopterus bicirrhis). When presented with a computerized version of the Monty Hall problem, the fish—like humans and macaques—tend to stick with their initial choice rather than switch to the second (and more advantageous) remaining option. Moreover, the fish continue to confirm their initial choice even after 200 trials, despite the reward being delivered more often when they switch their choice.
These “traps of the mind,” known as cognitive fallacies, arise from an incorrect assessment of the probability that a given event will occur or from irrational responses accompanying decision-making. One of the most famous examples is the Monty Hall paradox, a probability game in which most people tend to choose the less advantageous option.
“Humans subjected to this test make errors in calculating probabilities, but not only that: it has been shown that they sometimes stick with their initial choice out of fear of seeing that a last-minute switch turned out to be disadvantageous, thus perceiving a greater ‘loss’ compared to the starting condition. In addition, there is a sort of illusion of greater control over events at the moment of the first choice, when it is made without interference from the game host. We cannot rule out that certain ‘emotional’ responses also occur in animals, but we believe that a more plausible explanation is the difficulty fish have in estimating events involving conditional probability,” explains Christian Agrillo, corresponding author of the study and professor at the Department of General Psychology at the University of Padua.
“It is not the first time that animals phylogenetically distant from us have shown interesting convergences in perceptual and cognitive processes,” adds Alessandra Pecunioso, co-author of the study and researcher at the University of Padua. “The fact that a fish makes a sub-optimal choice in the Monty Hall game suggests that the cognitive processes underlying so-called reasoning fallacies can also occur with a completely different organization of neural circuits from ours, to the point of being present in animals without a cerebral cortex.”
[summary] =>
[format] => 2
[safe_value] =>
Studying reasoning fallacies in animals, or “traps of the mind,” can help us understand what is “typically” human and the evolutionary origins of certain cognitive processes. Research on primates and birds has so far shown mixed results: macaques seem to struggle—like us humans—when faced with this statistical puzzle, while pigeons appear to learn quickly to switch their initial choice and optimize their chances of success. This led researchers to believe that the cognitive processes underlying such reasoning fallacies were mainly linked to the complex neuro-cognitive systems of primates (human and non-human).
A study by the University of Padua, published in the journal Cognition and conducted by Christian Agrillo and Alessandra Pecunioso of the Department of General Psychology, opens up new perspectives by testing several specimens of ghost fish (Kryptopterus bicirrhis). When presented with a computerized version of the Monty Hall problem, the fish—like humans and macaques—tend to stick with their initial choice rather than switch to the second (and more advantageous) remaining option. Moreover, the fish continue to confirm their initial choice even after 200 trials, despite the reward being delivered more often when they switch their choice.
These “traps of the mind,” known as cognitive fallacies, arise from an incorrect assessment of the probability that a given event will occur or from irrational responses accompanying decision-making. One of the most famous examples is the Monty Hall paradox, a probability game in which most people tend to choose the less advantageous option.
“Humans subjected to this test make errors in calculating probabilities, but not only that: it has been shown that they sometimes stick with their initial choice out of fear of seeing that a last-minute switch turned out to be disadvantageous, thus perceiving a greater ‘loss’ compared to the starting condition. In addition, there is a sort of illusion of greater control over events at the moment of the first choice, when it is made without interference from the game host. We cannot rule out that certain ‘emotional’ responses also occur in animals, but we believe that a more plausible explanation is the difficulty fish have in estimating events involving conditional probability,” explains Christian Agrillo, corresponding author of the study and professor at the Department of General Psychology at the University of Padua.
“It is not the first time that animals phylogenetically distant from us have shown interesting convergences in perceptual and cognitive processes,” adds Alessandra Pecunioso, co-author of the study and researcher at the University of Padua. “The fact that a fish makes a sub-optimal choice in the Monty Hall game suggests that the cognitive processes underlying so-called reasoning fallacies can also occur with a completely different organization of neural circuits from ours, to the point of being present in animals without a cerebral cortex.”
[safe_summary] =>
)
)
)
[field_date_box_lancio_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => 2026-01-19T00:00:00
[timezone] => Europe/Paris
[timezone_db] => Europe/Paris
[date_type] => date
)
)
)
[field_etichetta_box_lancio_news] => Array
(
)
[field_img_box_lancio_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[fid] => 145481
[uid] => 2032
[filename] => n_pesce_rosso.jpg
[uri] => public://n_pesce_rosso_0.jpg
[filemime] => image/jpeg
[filesize] => 12050
[status] => 1
[timestamp] => 1768827666
[type] => image
[field_file_image_alt_text] => Array
(
)
[field_file_image_title_text] => Array
(
)
[field_folder] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[tid] => 2048
)
)
)
[metadata] => Array
(
[height] => 227
[width] => 677
)
[height] => 227
[width] => 677
[alt] => fish
[title] =>
)
)
)
[field_link_alla_news] => Array
(
)
[field_link_esterno_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] =>
[format] =>
[safe_value] =>
)
)
)
[field_pagina_associata] => Array
(
)
[field_link_etichetta] => Array
(
)
[field_abstract_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => University of Padua research team identifies the cognitive fallacy underlying the Monty Hall paradox not only in primates but also in fish
[format] =>
[safe_value] => University of Padua research team identifies the cognitive fallacy underlying the Monty Hall paradox not only in primates but also in fish
)
)
)
[field_allegato_news] => Array
(
)
[field_categorie_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[tid] => 2296
)
)
)
[field_pub_date] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => 2026-01-19T00:00:00
[value2] => 2027-01-19T00:00:00
[timezone] => Europe/Paris
[timezone_db] => Europe/Paris
[date_type] => date
)
)
)
[field_layout_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => single
)
)
)
[field_testo_opzionale_news] => Array
(
)
[field_url_en_page] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => /news/team-ricerca-unipd-studia-tranelli-mente-nei-pesci
[format] =>
[safe_value] => /news/team-ricerca-unipd-studia-tranelli-mente-nei-pesci
)
)
)
[field_url_en_page_label] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => Italian version
[format] =>
[safe_value] => Italian version
)
)
)
[path] => Array
(
[pathauto] => 1
)
[name] => francesca.forzan
[picture] => 0
[data] => b:0;
[num_revisions] => 1
[current_revision_id] => 515980
[is_current] => 1
[is_pending] =>
[revision_moderation] =>
[entity_view_prepared] => 1
)
[#items] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] =>
Studying reasoning fallacies in animals, or “traps of the mind,” can help us understand what is “typically” human and the evolutionary origins of certain cognitive processes. Research on primates and birds has so far shown mixed results: macaques seem to struggle—like us humans—when faced with this statistical puzzle, while pigeons appear to learn quickly to switch their initial choice and optimize their chances of success. This led researchers to believe that the cognitive processes underlying such reasoning fallacies were mainly linked to the complex neuro-cognitive systems of primates (human and non-human).
A study by the University of Padua, published in the journal Cognition and conducted by Christian Agrillo and Alessandra Pecunioso of the Department of General Psychology, opens up new perspectives by testing several specimens of ghost fish (Kryptopterus bicirrhis). When presented with a computerized version of the Monty Hall problem, the fish—like humans and macaques—tend to stick with their initial choice rather than switch to the second (and more advantageous) remaining option. Moreover, the fish continue to confirm their initial choice even after 200 trials, despite the reward being delivered more often when they switch their choice.
These “traps of the mind,” known as cognitive fallacies, arise from an incorrect assessment of the probability that a given event will occur or from irrational responses accompanying decision-making. One of the most famous examples is the Monty Hall paradox, a probability game in which most people tend to choose the less advantageous option.
“Humans subjected to this test make errors in calculating probabilities, but not only that: it has been shown that they sometimes stick with their initial choice out of fear of seeing that a last-minute switch turned out to be disadvantageous, thus perceiving a greater ‘loss’ compared to the starting condition. In addition, there is a sort of illusion of greater control over events at the moment of the first choice, when it is made without interference from the game host. We cannot rule out that certain ‘emotional’ responses also occur in animals, but we believe that a more plausible explanation is the difficulty fish have in estimating events involving conditional probability,” explains Christian Agrillo, corresponding author of the study and professor at the Department of General Psychology at the University of Padua.
“It is not the first time that animals phylogenetically distant from us have shown interesting convergences in perceptual and cognitive processes,” adds Alessandra Pecunioso, co-author of the study and researcher at the University of Padua. “The fact that a fish makes a sub-optimal choice in the Monty Hall game suggests that the cognitive processes underlying so-called reasoning fallacies can also occur with a completely different organization of neural circuits from ours, to the point of being present in animals without a cerebral cortex.”
[summary] =>
[format] => 2
[safe_value] =>
Studying reasoning fallacies in animals, or “traps of the mind,” can help us understand what is “typically” human and the evolutionary origins of certain cognitive processes. Research on primates and birds has so far shown mixed results: macaques seem to struggle—like us humans—when faced with this statistical puzzle, while pigeons appear to learn quickly to switch their initial choice and optimize their chances of success. This led researchers to believe that the cognitive processes underlying such reasoning fallacies were mainly linked to the complex neuro-cognitive systems of primates (human and non-human).
A study by the University of Padua, published in the journal Cognition and conducted by Christian Agrillo and Alessandra Pecunioso of the Department of General Psychology, opens up new perspectives by testing several specimens of ghost fish (Kryptopterus bicirrhis). When presented with a computerized version of the Monty Hall problem, the fish—like humans and macaques—tend to stick with their initial choice rather than switch to the second (and more advantageous) remaining option. Moreover, the fish continue to confirm their initial choice even after 200 trials, despite the reward being delivered more often when they switch their choice.
These “traps of the mind,” known as cognitive fallacies, arise from an incorrect assessment of the probability that a given event will occur or from irrational responses accompanying decision-making. One of the most famous examples is the Monty Hall paradox, a probability game in which most people tend to choose the less advantageous option.
“Humans subjected to this test make errors in calculating probabilities, but not only that: it has been shown that they sometimes stick with their initial choice out of fear of seeing that a last-minute switch turned out to be disadvantageous, thus perceiving a greater ‘loss’ compared to the starting condition. In addition, there is a sort of illusion of greater control over events at the moment of the first choice, when it is made without interference from the game host. We cannot rule out that certain ‘emotional’ responses also occur in animals, but we believe that a more plausible explanation is the difficulty fish have in estimating events involving conditional probability,” explains Christian Agrillo, corresponding author of the study and professor at the Department of General Psychology at the University of Padua.
“It is not the first time that animals phylogenetically distant from us have shown interesting convergences in perceptual and cognitive processes,” adds Alessandra Pecunioso, co-author of the study and researcher at the University of Padua. “The fact that a fish makes a sub-optimal choice in the Monty Hall game suggests that the cognitive processes underlying so-called reasoning fallacies can also occur with a completely different organization of neural circuits from ours, to the point of being present in animals without a cerebral cortex.”
[safe_summary] =>
)
)
[#formatter] => text_summary_or_trimmed
[0] => Array
(
[#markup] =>
Studying reasoning fallacies in animals, or “traps of the mind,” can help us understand what is “typically” human and the evolutionary origins of certain cognitive processes. Research on primates and birds has so far shown mixed results: macaques seem to struggle—like us humans—when faced with this statistical puzzle, while pigeons appear to learn quickly to switch their initial choice and optimize their chances of success.
)
)
[field_img_box_lancio_news] => Array
(
[#theme] => field
[#weight] => 0
[#title] => Immagine
[#access] => 1
[#label_display] => above
[#view_mode] => teaser
[#language] => und
[#field_name] => field_img_box_lancio_news
[#field_type] => image
[#field_translatable] => 0
[#entity_type] => node
[#bundle] => box_lancio_news
[#object] => stdClass Object
(
[vid] => 515980
[uid] => 2032
[title] => Unipd research team studies “traps of the mind” in fish
[log] =>
[status] => 1
[comment] => 0
[promote] => 1
[sticky] => 0
[nid] => 126991
[type] => box_lancio_news
[language] => it
[created] => 1768827666
[changed] => 1768827666
[tnid] => 0
[translate] => 0
[revision_timestamp] => 1768827666
[revision_uid] => 2032
[body] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] =>
Studying reasoning fallacies in animals, or “traps of the mind,” can help us understand what is “typically” human and the evolutionary origins of certain cognitive processes. Research on primates and birds has so far shown mixed results: macaques seem to struggle—like us humans—when faced with this statistical puzzle, while pigeons appear to learn quickly to switch their initial choice and optimize their chances of success. This led researchers to believe that the cognitive processes underlying such reasoning fallacies were mainly linked to the complex neuro-cognitive systems of primates (human and non-human).
A study by the University of Padua, published in the journal Cognition and conducted by Christian Agrillo and Alessandra Pecunioso of the Department of General Psychology, opens up new perspectives by testing several specimens of ghost fish (Kryptopterus bicirrhis). When presented with a computerized version of the Monty Hall problem, the fish—like humans and macaques—tend to stick with their initial choice rather than switch to the second (and more advantageous) remaining option. Moreover, the fish continue to confirm their initial choice even after 200 trials, despite the reward being delivered more often when they switch their choice.
These “traps of the mind,” known as cognitive fallacies, arise from an incorrect assessment of the probability that a given event will occur or from irrational responses accompanying decision-making. One of the most famous examples is the Monty Hall paradox, a probability game in which most people tend to choose the less advantageous option.
“Humans subjected to this test make errors in calculating probabilities, but not only that: it has been shown that they sometimes stick with their initial choice out of fear of seeing that a last-minute switch turned out to be disadvantageous, thus perceiving a greater ‘loss’ compared to the starting condition. In addition, there is a sort of illusion of greater control over events at the moment of the first choice, when it is made without interference from the game host. We cannot rule out that certain ‘emotional’ responses also occur in animals, but we believe that a more plausible explanation is the difficulty fish have in estimating events involving conditional probability,” explains Christian Agrillo, corresponding author of the study and professor at the Department of General Psychology at the University of Padua.
“It is not the first time that animals phylogenetically distant from us have shown interesting convergences in perceptual and cognitive processes,” adds Alessandra Pecunioso, co-author of the study and researcher at the University of Padua. “The fact that a fish makes a sub-optimal choice in the Monty Hall game suggests that the cognitive processes underlying so-called reasoning fallacies can also occur with a completely different organization of neural circuits from ours, to the point of being present in animals without a cerebral cortex.”
[summary] =>
[format] => 2
[safe_value] =>
Studying reasoning fallacies in animals, or “traps of the mind,” can help us understand what is “typically” human and the evolutionary origins of certain cognitive processes. Research on primates and birds has so far shown mixed results: macaques seem to struggle—like us humans—when faced with this statistical puzzle, while pigeons appear to learn quickly to switch their initial choice and optimize their chances of success. This led researchers to believe that the cognitive processes underlying such reasoning fallacies were mainly linked to the complex neuro-cognitive systems of primates (human and non-human).
A study by the University of Padua, published in the journal Cognition and conducted by Christian Agrillo and Alessandra Pecunioso of the Department of General Psychology, opens up new perspectives by testing several specimens of ghost fish (Kryptopterus bicirrhis). When presented with a computerized version of the Monty Hall problem, the fish—like humans and macaques—tend to stick with their initial choice rather than switch to the second (and more advantageous) remaining option. Moreover, the fish continue to confirm their initial choice even after 200 trials, despite the reward being delivered more often when they switch their choice.
These “traps of the mind,” known as cognitive fallacies, arise from an incorrect assessment of the probability that a given event will occur or from irrational responses accompanying decision-making. One of the most famous examples is the Monty Hall paradox, a probability game in which most people tend to choose the less advantageous option.
“Humans subjected to this test make errors in calculating probabilities, but not only that: it has been shown that they sometimes stick with their initial choice out of fear of seeing that a last-minute switch turned out to be disadvantageous, thus perceiving a greater ‘loss’ compared to the starting condition. In addition, there is a sort of illusion of greater control over events at the moment of the first choice, when it is made without interference from the game host. We cannot rule out that certain ‘emotional’ responses also occur in animals, but we believe that a more plausible explanation is the difficulty fish have in estimating events involving conditional probability,” explains Christian Agrillo, corresponding author of the study and professor at the Department of General Psychology at the University of Padua.
“It is not the first time that animals phylogenetically distant from us have shown interesting convergences in perceptual and cognitive processes,” adds Alessandra Pecunioso, co-author of the study and researcher at the University of Padua. “The fact that a fish makes a sub-optimal choice in the Monty Hall game suggests that the cognitive processes underlying so-called reasoning fallacies can also occur with a completely different organization of neural circuits from ours, to the point of being present in animals without a cerebral cortex.”
[safe_summary] =>
)
)
)
[field_date_box_lancio_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => 2026-01-19T00:00:00
[timezone] => Europe/Paris
[timezone_db] => Europe/Paris
[date_type] => date
)
)
)
[field_etichetta_box_lancio_news] => Array
(
)
[field_img_box_lancio_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[fid] => 145481
[uid] => 2032
[filename] => n_pesce_rosso.jpg
[uri] => public://n_pesce_rosso_0.jpg
[filemime] => image/jpeg
[filesize] => 12050
[status] => 1
[timestamp] => 1768827666
[type] => image
[field_file_image_alt_text] => Array
(
)
[field_file_image_title_text] => Array
(
)
[field_folder] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[tid] => 2048
)
)
)
[metadata] => Array
(
[height] => 227
[width] => 677
)
[height] => 227
[width] => 677
[alt] => fish
[title] =>
)
)
)
[field_link_alla_news] => Array
(
)
[field_link_esterno_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] =>
[format] =>
[safe_value] =>
)
)
)
[field_pagina_associata] => Array
(
)
[field_link_etichetta] => Array
(
)
[field_abstract_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => University of Padua research team identifies the cognitive fallacy underlying the Monty Hall paradox not only in primates but also in fish
[format] =>
[safe_value] => University of Padua research team identifies the cognitive fallacy underlying the Monty Hall paradox not only in primates but also in fish
)
)
)
[field_allegato_news] => Array
(
)
[field_categorie_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[tid] => 2296
)
)
)
[field_pub_date] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => 2026-01-19T00:00:00
[value2] => 2027-01-19T00:00:00
[timezone] => Europe/Paris
[timezone_db] => Europe/Paris
[date_type] => date
)
)
)
[field_layout_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => single
)
)
)
[field_testo_opzionale_news] => Array
(
)
[field_url_en_page] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => /news/team-ricerca-unipd-studia-tranelli-mente-nei-pesci
[format] =>
[safe_value] => /news/team-ricerca-unipd-studia-tranelli-mente-nei-pesci
)
)
)
[field_url_en_page_label] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => Italian version
[format] =>
[safe_value] => Italian version
)
)
)
[path] => Array
(
[pathauto] => 1
)
[name] => francesca.forzan
[picture] => 0
[data] => b:0;
[num_revisions] => 1
[current_revision_id] => 515980
[is_current] => 1
[is_pending] =>
[revision_moderation] =>
[entity_view_prepared] => 1
)
[#items] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[fid] => 145481
[uid] => 2032
[filename] => n_pesce_rosso.jpg
[uri] => public://n_pesce_rosso_0.jpg
[filemime] => image/jpeg
[filesize] => 12050
[status] => 1
[timestamp] => 1768827666
[type] => image
[field_file_image_alt_text] => Array
(
)
[field_file_image_title_text] => Array
(
)
[field_folder] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[tid] => 2048
)
)
)
[metadata] => Array
(
[height] => 227
[width] => 677
)
[height] => 227
[width] => 677
[alt] => fish
[title] =>
)
)
[#formatter] => image
[0] => Array
(
[#theme] => image_formatter
[#item] => Array
(
[fid] => 145481
[uid] => 2032
[filename] => n_pesce_rosso.jpg
[uri] => public://n_pesce_rosso_0.jpg
[filemime] => image/jpeg
[filesize] => 12050
[status] => 1
[timestamp] => 1768827666
[type] => image
[field_file_image_alt_text] => Array
(
)
[field_file_image_title_text] => Array
(
)
[field_folder] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[tid] => 2048
)
)
)
[metadata] => Array
(
[height] => 227
[width] => 677
)
[height] => 227
[width] => 677
[alt] => fish
[title] =>
)
[#image_style] =>
[#path] =>
)
)
[field_abstract_news] => Array
(
[#theme] => field
[#weight] => 0
[#title] => Abstract
[#access] => 1
[#label_display] => above
[#view_mode] => teaser
[#language] => und
[#field_name] => field_abstract_news
[#field_type] => text_long
[#field_translatable] => 0
[#entity_type] => node
[#bundle] => box_lancio_news
[#object] => stdClass Object
(
[vid] => 515980
[uid] => 2032
[title] => Unipd research team studies “traps of the mind” in fish
[log] =>
[status] => 1
[comment] => 0
[promote] => 1
[sticky] => 0
[nid] => 126991
[type] => box_lancio_news
[language] => it
[created] => 1768827666
[changed] => 1768827666
[tnid] => 0
[translate] => 0
[revision_timestamp] => 1768827666
[revision_uid] => 2032
[body] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] =>
Studying reasoning fallacies in animals, or “traps of the mind,” can help us understand what is “typically” human and the evolutionary origins of certain cognitive processes. Research on primates and birds has so far shown mixed results: macaques seem to struggle—like us humans—when faced with this statistical puzzle, while pigeons appear to learn quickly to switch their initial choice and optimize their chances of success. This led researchers to believe that the cognitive processes underlying such reasoning fallacies were mainly linked to the complex neuro-cognitive systems of primates (human and non-human).
A study by the University of Padua, published in the journal Cognition and conducted by Christian Agrillo and Alessandra Pecunioso of the Department of General Psychology, opens up new perspectives by testing several specimens of ghost fish (Kryptopterus bicirrhis). When presented with a computerized version of the Monty Hall problem, the fish—like humans and macaques—tend to stick with their initial choice rather than switch to the second (and more advantageous) remaining option. Moreover, the fish continue to confirm their initial choice even after 200 trials, despite the reward being delivered more often when they switch their choice.
These “traps of the mind,” known as cognitive fallacies, arise from an incorrect assessment of the probability that a given event will occur or from irrational responses accompanying decision-making. One of the most famous examples is the Monty Hall paradox, a probability game in which most people tend to choose the less advantageous option.
“Humans subjected to this test make errors in calculating probabilities, but not only that: it has been shown that they sometimes stick with their initial choice out of fear of seeing that a last-minute switch turned out to be disadvantageous, thus perceiving a greater ‘loss’ compared to the starting condition. In addition, there is a sort of illusion of greater control over events at the moment of the first choice, when it is made without interference from the game host. We cannot rule out that certain ‘emotional’ responses also occur in animals, but we believe that a more plausible explanation is the difficulty fish have in estimating events involving conditional probability,” explains Christian Agrillo, corresponding author of the study and professor at the Department of General Psychology at the University of Padua.
“It is not the first time that animals phylogenetically distant from us have shown interesting convergences in perceptual and cognitive processes,” adds Alessandra Pecunioso, co-author of the study and researcher at the University of Padua. “The fact that a fish makes a sub-optimal choice in the Monty Hall game suggests that the cognitive processes underlying so-called reasoning fallacies can also occur with a completely different organization of neural circuits from ours, to the point of being present in animals without a cerebral cortex.”
[summary] =>
[format] => 2
[safe_value] =>
Studying reasoning fallacies in animals, or “traps of the mind,” can help us understand what is “typically” human and the evolutionary origins of certain cognitive processes. Research on primates and birds has so far shown mixed results: macaques seem to struggle—like us humans—when faced with this statistical puzzle, while pigeons appear to learn quickly to switch their initial choice and optimize their chances of success. This led researchers to believe that the cognitive processes underlying such reasoning fallacies were mainly linked to the complex neuro-cognitive systems of primates (human and non-human).
A study by the University of Padua, published in the journal Cognition and conducted by Christian Agrillo and Alessandra Pecunioso of the Department of General Psychology, opens up new perspectives by testing several specimens of ghost fish (Kryptopterus bicirrhis). When presented with a computerized version of the Monty Hall problem, the fish—like humans and macaques—tend to stick with their initial choice rather than switch to the second (and more advantageous) remaining option. Moreover, the fish continue to confirm their initial choice even after 200 trials, despite the reward being delivered more often when they switch their choice.
These “traps of the mind,” known as cognitive fallacies, arise from an incorrect assessment of the probability that a given event will occur or from irrational responses accompanying decision-making. One of the most famous examples is the Monty Hall paradox, a probability game in which most people tend to choose the less advantageous option.
“Humans subjected to this test make errors in calculating probabilities, but not only that: it has been shown that they sometimes stick with their initial choice out of fear of seeing that a last-minute switch turned out to be disadvantageous, thus perceiving a greater ‘loss’ compared to the starting condition. In addition, there is a sort of illusion of greater control over events at the moment of the first choice, when it is made without interference from the game host. We cannot rule out that certain ‘emotional’ responses also occur in animals, but we believe that a more plausible explanation is the difficulty fish have in estimating events involving conditional probability,” explains Christian Agrillo, corresponding author of the study and professor at the Department of General Psychology at the University of Padua.
“It is not the first time that animals phylogenetically distant from us have shown interesting convergences in perceptual and cognitive processes,” adds Alessandra Pecunioso, co-author of the study and researcher at the University of Padua. “The fact that a fish makes a sub-optimal choice in the Monty Hall game suggests that the cognitive processes underlying so-called reasoning fallacies can also occur with a completely different organization of neural circuits from ours, to the point of being present in animals without a cerebral cortex.”
[safe_summary] =>
)
)
)
[field_date_box_lancio_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => 2026-01-19T00:00:00
[timezone] => Europe/Paris
[timezone_db] => Europe/Paris
[date_type] => date
)
)
)
[field_etichetta_box_lancio_news] => Array
(
)
[field_img_box_lancio_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[fid] => 145481
[uid] => 2032
[filename] => n_pesce_rosso.jpg
[uri] => public://n_pesce_rosso_0.jpg
[filemime] => image/jpeg
[filesize] => 12050
[status] => 1
[timestamp] => 1768827666
[type] => image
[field_file_image_alt_text] => Array
(
)
[field_file_image_title_text] => Array
(
)
[field_folder] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[tid] => 2048
)
)
)
[metadata] => Array
(
[height] => 227
[width] => 677
)
[height] => 227
[width] => 677
[alt] => fish
[title] =>
)
)
)
[field_link_alla_news] => Array
(
)
[field_link_esterno_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] =>
[format] =>
[safe_value] =>
)
)
)
[field_pagina_associata] => Array
(
)
[field_link_etichetta] => Array
(
)
[field_abstract_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => University of Padua research team identifies the cognitive fallacy underlying the Monty Hall paradox not only in primates but also in fish
[format] =>
[safe_value] => University of Padua research team identifies the cognitive fallacy underlying the Monty Hall paradox not only in primates but also in fish
)
)
)
[field_allegato_news] => Array
(
)
[field_categorie_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[tid] => 2296
)
)
)
[field_pub_date] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => 2026-01-19T00:00:00
[value2] => 2027-01-19T00:00:00
[timezone] => Europe/Paris
[timezone_db] => Europe/Paris
[date_type] => date
)
)
)
[field_layout_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => single
)
)
)
[field_testo_opzionale_news] => Array
(
)
[field_url_en_page] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => /news/team-ricerca-unipd-studia-tranelli-mente-nei-pesci
[format] =>
[safe_value] => /news/team-ricerca-unipd-studia-tranelli-mente-nei-pesci
)
)
)
[field_url_en_page_label] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => Italian version
[format] =>
[safe_value] => Italian version
)
)
)
[path] => Array
(
[pathauto] => 1
)
[name] => francesca.forzan
[picture] => 0
[data] => b:0;
[num_revisions] => 1
[current_revision_id] => 515980
[is_current] => 1
[is_pending] =>
[revision_moderation] =>
[entity_view_prepared] => 1
)
[#items] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => University of Padua research team identifies the cognitive fallacy underlying the Monty Hall paradox not only in primates but also in fish
[format] =>
[safe_value] => University of Padua research team identifies the cognitive fallacy underlying the Monty Hall paradox not only in primates but also in fish
)
)
[#formatter] => text_default
[0] => Array
(
[#markup] => University of Padua research team identifies the cognitive fallacy underlying the Monty Hall paradox not only in primates but also in fish
)
)
[links] => Array
(
[#theme] => links__node
[#pre_render] => Array
(
[0] => drupal_pre_render_links
)
[#attributes] => Array
(
[class] => Array
(
[0] => links
[1] => inline
)
)
[node] => Array
(
[#theme] => links__node__node
[#links] => Array
(
[node-readmore] => Array
(
[title] => Read more
about Unipd research team studies “traps of the mind” in fish
[href] => node/126991
[html] => 1
[attributes] => Array
(
[rel] => tag
[title] => Unipd research team studies “traps of the mind” in fish
)
)
)
[#attributes] => Array
(
[class] => Array
(
[0] => links
[1] => inline
)
)
)
)
[field_date_box_lancio_news] => Array
(
[#theme] => field
[#weight] => 1
[#title] => Data
[#access] => 1
[#label_display] => above
[#view_mode] => teaser
[#language] => und
[#field_name] => field_date_box_lancio_news
[#field_type] => date
[#field_translatable] => 0
[#entity_type] => node
[#bundle] => box_lancio_news
[#object] => stdClass Object
(
[vid] => 515980
[uid] => 2032
[title] => Unipd research team studies “traps of the mind” in fish
[log] =>
[status] => 1
[comment] => 0
[promote] => 1
[sticky] => 0
[nid] => 126991
[type] => box_lancio_news
[language] => it
[created] => 1768827666
[changed] => 1768827666
[tnid] => 0
[translate] => 0
[revision_timestamp] => 1768827666
[revision_uid] => 2032
[body] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] =>
Studying reasoning fallacies in animals, or “traps of the mind,” can help us understand what is “typically” human and the evolutionary origins of certain cognitive processes. Research on primates and birds has so far shown mixed results: macaques seem to struggle—like us humans—when faced with this statistical puzzle, while pigeons appear to learn quickly to switch their initial choice and optimize their chances of success. This led researchers to believe that the cognitive processes underlying such reasoning fallacies were mainly linked to the complex neuro-cognitive systems of primates (human and non-human).
A study by the University of Padua, published in the journal Cognition and conducted by Christian Agrillo and Alessandra Pecunioso of the Department of General Psychology, opens up new perspectives by testing several specimens of ghost fish (Kryptopterus bicirrhis). When presented with a computerized version of the Monty Hall problem, the fish—like humans and macaques—tend to stick with their initial choice rather than switch to the second (and more advantageous) remaining option. Moreover, the fish continue to confirm their initial choice even after 200 trials, despite the reward being delivered more often when they switch their choice.
These “traps of the mind,” known as cognitive fallacies, arise from an incorrect assessment of the probability that a given event will occur or from irrational responses accompanying decision-making. One of the most famous examples is the Monty Hall paradox, a probability game in which most people tend to choose the less advantageous option.
“Humans subjected to this test make errors in calculating probabilities, but not only that: it has been shown that they sometimes stick with their initial choice out of fear of seeing that a last-minute switch turned out to be disadvantageous, thus perceiving a greater ‘loss’ compared to the starting condition. In addition, there is a sort of illusion of greater control over events at the moment of the first choice, when it is made without interference from the game host. We cannot rule out that certain ‘emotional’ responses also occur in animals, but we believe that a more plausible explanation is the difficulty fish have in estimating events involving conditional probability,” explains Christian Agrillo, corresponding author of the study and professor at the Department of General Psychology at the University of Padua.
“It is not the first time that animals phylogenetically distant from us have shown interesting convergences in perceptual and cognitive processes,” adds Alessandra Pecunioso, co-author of the study and researcher at the University of Padua. “The fact that a fish makes a sub-optimal choice in the Monty Hall game suggests that the cognitive processes underlying so-called reasoning fallacies can also occur with a completely different organization of neural circuits from ours, to the point of being present in animals without a cerebral cortex.”
[summary] =>
[format] => 2
[safe_value] =>
Studying reasoning fallacies in animals, or “traps of the mind,” can help us understand what is “typically” human and the evolutionary origins of certain cognitive processes. Research on primates and birds has so far shown mixed results: macaques seem to struggle—like us humans—when faced with this statistical puzzle, while pigeons appear to learn quickly to switch their initial choice and optimize their chances of success. This led researchers to believe that the cognitive processes underlying such reasoning fallacies were mainly linked to the complex neuro-cognitive systems of primates (human and non-human).
A study by the University of Padua, published in the journal Cognition and conducted by Christian Agrillo and Alessandra Pecunioso of the Department of General Psychology, opens up new perspectives by testing several specimens of ghost fish (Kryptopterus bicirrhis). When presented with a computerized version of the Monty Hall problem, the fish—like humans and macaques—tend to stick with their initial choice rather than switch to the second (and more advantageous) remaining option. Moreover, the fish continue to confirm their initial choice even after 200 trials, despite the reward being delivered more often when they switch their choice.
These “traps of the mind,” known as cognitive fallacies, arise from an incorrect assessment of the probability that a given event will occur or from irrational responses accompanying decision-making. One of the most famous examples is the Monty Hall paradox, a probability game in which most people tend to choose the less advantageous option.
“Humans subjected to this test make errors in calculating probabilities, but not only that: it has been shown that they sometimes stick with their initial choice out of fear of seeing that a last-minute switch turned out to be disadvantageous, thus perceiving a greater ‘loss’ compared to the starting condition. In addition, there is a sort of illusion of greater control over events at the moment of the first choice, when it is made without interference from the game host. We cannot rule out that certain ‘emotional’ responses also occur in animals, but we believe that a more plausible explanation is the difficulty fish have in estimating events involving conditional probability,” explains Christian Agrillo, corresponding author of the study and professor at the Department of General Psychology at the University of Padua.
“It is not the first time that animals phylogenetically distant from us have shown interesting convergences in perceptual and cognitive processes,” adds Alessandra Pecunioso, co-author of the study and researcher at the University of Padua. “The fact that a fish makes a sub-optimal choice in the Monty Hall game suggests that the cognitive processes underlying so-called reasoning fallacies can also occur with a completely different organization of neural circuits from ours, to the point of being present in animals without a cerebral cortex.”
[safe_summary] =>
)
)
)
[field_date_box_lancio_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => 2026-01-19T00:00:00
[timezone] => Europe/Paris
[timezone_db] => Europe/Paris
[date_type] => date
)
)
)
[field_etichetta_box_lancio_news] => Array
(
)
[field_img_box_lancio_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[fid] => 145481
[uid] => 2032
[filename] => n_pesce_rosso.jpg
[uri] => public://n_pesce_rosso_0.jpg
[filemime] => image/jpeg
[filesize] => 12050
[status] => 1
[timestamp] => 1768827666
[type] => image
[field_file_image_alt_text] => Array
(
)
[field_file_image_title_text] => Array
(
)
[field_folder] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[tid] => 2048
)
)
)
[metadata] => Array
(
[height] => 227
[width] => 677
)
[height] => 227
[width] => 677
[alt] => fish
[title] =>
)
)
)
[field_link_alla_news] => Array
(
)
[field_link_esterno_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] =>
[format] =>
[safe_value] =>
)
)
)
[field_pagina_associata] => Array
(
)
[field_link_etichetta] => Array
(
)
[field_abstract_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => University of Padua research team identifies the cognitive fallacy underlying the Monty Hall paradox not only in primates but also in fish
[format] =>
[safe_value] => University of Padua research team identifies the cognitive fallacy underlying the Monty Hall paradox not only in primates but also in fish
)
)
)
[field_allegato_news] => Array
(
)
[field_categorie_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[tid] => 2296
)
)
)
[field_pub_date] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => 2026-01-19T00:00:00
[value2] => 2027-01-19T00:00:00
[timezone] => Europe/Paris
[timezone_db] => Europe/Paris
[date_type] => date
)
)
)
[field_layout_news] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => single
)
)
)
[field_testo_opzionale_news] => Array
(
)
[field_url_en_page] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => /news/team-ricerca-unipd-studia-tranelli-mente-nei-pesci
[format] =>
[safe_value] => /news/team-ricerca-unipd-studia-tranelli-mente-nei-pesci
)
)
)
[field_url_en_page_label] => Array
(
[und] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => Italian version
[format] =>
[safe_value] => Italian version
)
)
)
[path] => Array
(
[pathauto] => 1
)
[name] => francesca.forzan
[picture] => 0
[data] => b:0;
[num_revisions] => 1
[current_revision_id] => 515980
[is_current] => 1
[is_pending] =>
[revision_moderation] =>
[entity_view_prepared] => 1
)
[#items] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[value] => 2026-01-19T00:00:00
[timezone] => Europe/Paris
[timezone_db] => Europe/Paris
[date_type] => date
)
)
[#formatter] => date_default
[0] => Array
(
[#markup] =>
Lun, 19/01/2026
)
)
)
