↓ Skip to main content

Learning of an oddity rule by pigeons in a four-choice touch-screen procedure

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Learning of an oddity rule by pigeons in a four-choice touch-screen procedure
Published in
Animal Cognition, October 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10071-012-0574-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ulrike Aust, Michael M. Steurer

Abstract

Six pigeons were trained to peck at a target (odd stimulus) that was presented on a touch-screen together with three identical distractors (non-odd stimuli). The target could be either a square or a circle that was either blue or green, and the distractors in each trial were always of the opposite form and color to the target. Thus, the birds could solve the task by attending to color, form, or both. Transfer tests showed that performance was not disrupted by novel forms, stimulus sizes, distractor numbers, and display configurations, but broke down with novel stimulus types (textured stimuli, clip art images, and photographs). Transfer to novel colors was, for the most part, restricted to trials in which only one component-target or distractors, but not both-had a novel color. This suggested that the pigeons used a couple of if-then rules rather than an oddity concept to solve the task, and that color differences between target and distractors were the only cue upon which responding was based. A control experiment with the order of color and form tests being reversed excluded the possibility of the prevalence of color being an artifact of task order and reinforcement contingencies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 5%
Unknown 21 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 23%
Researcher 4 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 14%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 36%
Psychology 6 27%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Design 1 5%
Unknown 6 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 May 2013.
All research outputs
#2,800,888
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#555
of 1,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,803
of 184,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,441 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 184,189 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.