| Title |
How greater mouse-eared bats deal with ambiguous echoic scenes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Comparative Physiology A, July 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00359-010-0563-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. L. Melcón, Y. Yovel, A. Denzinger, H.-U. Schnitzler |
| Abstract |
Echolocating bats have to assign the received echoes to the correct call that generated them. Failing to do so will result in the perception of virtual targets that are positioned where there is no actual target. The assignment of echoes to the emitted calls can be ambiguous especially if the pulse intervals between calls are short and kept constant. Here, we present first evidence that greater mouse-eared bats deal with ambiguity by changing the pulse interval more often, in particular by reducing the number of calls in the terminal group before landing. This strategy separates virtual targets from real ones according to their change in position. Real targets will always remain in a constant position, and virtual targets will jitter back and forth according to the change in the time interval. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 56 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 17% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 17% |
| Unknown | 7 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 35 | 59% |
| Environmental Science | 6 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 8% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 7 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 May 2012.
All research outputs
#21,164,509
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#1,366
of 1,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,655
of 96,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#9
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,450 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 96,278 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.