Editing Mirror test (section)

==Criticism==
The MSR test has been criticized for several reasons, in particular because it may result in false negative findings.<ref name="Suddendorf" />

===Perception===
It may be of limited value when applied to species that primarily use senses other than vision.<ref name="coren" /><ref name="bekoff" /><ref>{{cite book |last1=Gibson |first1=Johanna |title=Owned, An Ethological Jurisprudence of Property: From the Cave to the Commons |date=6 December 2019 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-000-02720-4 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rZ7BDwAAQBAJ&dq=Mirror+test+senses+other+than+vision&pg=PT155 |language=en}}</ref> Humans have been determined by [[biologist]]s to have some of the best eyesight amongst animals, exceeding the overwhelming majority in daylight settings, though a few species have better.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Renner |first=Ben |date=2019-01-09 |title=Which species, including humans, has the sharpest vision? Study debunks old beliefs |url=https://studyfinds.org/which-species-greatest-vision-study-debunks-old-beleifs/ |access-date=2024-02-25 |website=Study Finds |language=en-US}}</ref> By contrast, dogs for example mainly use [[Sense of smell|smell]] and [[hearing]]; vision is used third. This may be why dogs fail the MSR test. With this in mind, biologist [[Marc Bekoff]] developed a scent-based paradigm using [[dog urine]] to test self-recognition in canines.<ref name="archer" /><ref name="coren" /> He tested his own dog, but his results were inconclusive.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Coren|first=Stanley|date=7 July 2011|title=Does My Dog Recognize Himself in a Mirror?|url=http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201107/does-my-dog-recognize-himself-in-mirror|work=[[Psychology Today]]}}</ref> Dog cognition researcher [[Alexandra Horowitz]] formalized Bekoff's idea in a controlled experiment, first reported in 2016<ref name="Horowitz">{{Cite book|last=Horowitz|first=Alexandra|title=Being a dog : following the dog into a world of smell|date=2016|publisher=Scribner|isbn=9781476795997|location=New York|oclc=955777362}}</ref> and published in 2017.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Horowitz|first=Alexandra|date=2017|title=Smelling themselves: Dogs investigate their own odors longer when modified in an "olfactory mirror" test|journal=Behavioural Processes|volume=143C|pages=17–24|doi=10.1016/j.beproc.2017.08.001|pmid=28797909|s2cid=4929863}}</ref> She compared the dogs' behavior when examining their own and others' odors, and also when examining their own odor with an added smell "mark" analogous to the visual mark in MSR tests. These subjects not only discriminated their own odor from that of other dogs, as Bekoff had found, but also spent more time investigating their own odor "image" when it was modified, as subjects who pass the MSR test do.<ref name="the atlantic">{{cite web|date=17 August 2017|title=Can Dogs Smell Their 'Reflections'?|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/can-dogs-smell-their-reflections/537219/|access-date=4 July 2018|website=[[The Atlantic]]}}</ref> A 2016 study suggested an ethological approach, the "Sniff test of self-recognition (STSR)" which did not shed light on different ways of checking for self-recognition.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Cazzolla Gatti|first=Roberto|date=2016|title=Self-consciousness: beyond the looking-glass and what dogs found there|journal=Ethology Ecology & Evolution|volume=28|issue=2|pages=232–240|doi=10.1080/03949370.2015.1102777|s2cid=217507938}}</ref> Dogs also show self-awareness in the size and movement of their bodies.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Magazine |first1=Smithsonian |last2=Gamillo |first2=Elizabeth |title=Dogs May Be More Self-Aware Than Experts Thought |url=https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/canines-may-have-more-self-awareness-how-their-paws-take-space-180977081/ |access-date=2024-02-25 |website=Smithsonian Magazine |language=en}}</ref> Garter snakes, a relatively social snake species, have also passed an odor based "mirror" test.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Freiburger |first1=Troy |last2=Miller |first2=Noam |last3=Skinner |first3=Morgan |date=2024-04-10 |title=Olfactory self-recognition in two species of snake |journal=Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences |language=en |volume=291 |issue=2020 |doi=10.1098/rspb.2024.0125 |issn=0962-8452 |pmc=10987230 |pmid=38565155}}</ref>

===Social motivation===
Another concern with the MSR test is that some species quickly respond aggressively to their mirror reflection as if it were a threatening conspecific, thereby preventing the animal from calmly considering what the reflection actually represents. This may be why monkeys fail the MSR test.<ref name="Couchman">{{cite journal|author=Couchman, J.J.|year=2011|title=Self-agency in rhesus monkeys|journal=Biology Letters|volume=8|issue=1|pages=39–41|doi=10.1098/rsbl.2011.0536|pmc=3259954|pmid=21733868}}</ref><ref name="Anderson">{{cite journal|author=Anderson, J.R.|year=1984|title=Monkeys with mirrors: Some questions for primate psychology|journal=International Journal of Primatology|volume=5|issue=1|pages=81–98|doi=10.1007/bf02735149|s2cid=30888917}}</ref>

===Disinterest===
In an MSR test, animals may not recognise the mark as abnormal, or may not be sufficiently motivated to react to it. However, this does not mean they are unable to recognize themselves. For example, in an MSR test conducted on three elephants, only one elephant passed the test, but the two elephants that failed still demonstrated behaviors that can be interpreted as self-recognition. The researchers commented that the elephants might not have touched the mark because it was not important enough to them.<ref name="scientificamerican1">{{cite web|last=Koerth-Baker|first=Maggie|date=29 November 2010|title=Kids (and animals) who fail classic mirror tests may still have sense of self|url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=kids-and-animals-who-fail-classic-mirror|access-date=30 May 2013|work=[[Scientific American]]}}</ref> Similarly, lesser apes infrequently engage in self-grooming, which may explain their failure to touch a mark on their heads in the mirror test.<ref name="Suddendorf" /> In response to the question of the subject's motivation to clean, another study modified the test by introducing child subjects to a doll with a rouge spot under its eye and asking the child to help clean the doll. After establishing that the mark was abnormal and to be cleaned, the doll was put away and the test continued. This modification increased the number of self-recognisers.<ref name="Asendorpf">{{cite journal |doi=10.1037/0012-1649.32.2.313 |last1=Asendorpf |first1=J. B. |last2= Warkentin|first2=V. |last3=Baudonniere|first3=P. |title=Self-awareness and other-awareness II: Mirror self-recognition, social contingency awareness, and synchronic imitation |journal=Developmental Psychology |volume=32 |pages=313–321 |year=1996 |issue=2 |s2cid=21762291 |citeseerx=10.1.1.524.8664 }}</ref>

===Ambiguity===
[[Frans de Waal]], a biologist and primatologist at Emory University, has stated that self-awareness is not binary, and the mirror test should not be relied upon as a sole indicator of self-awareness, though it is a good test to have. Different animals adapt to the mirror in different ways.<ref>{{Cite magazine|last=Wilke|first=Carolyn|date=21 February 2019|title=The Mirror Test Peers into the Workings of Animal Minds|url=https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/the-mirror-test-peers-into-the-workings-of-animal-minds-65497|magazine=[[The Scientist (magazine)|The Scientist]]}}</ref>