↓ Skip to main content

Brevity is prevalent in bat short-range communication

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Comparative Physiology A, February 2013
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 (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Brevity is prevalent in bat short-range communication
Published in
Journal of Comparative Physiology A, February 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00359-013-0793-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bo Luo, Tinglei Jiang, Ying Liu, Jing Wang, Aiqing Lin, Xuewen Wei, Jiang Feng

Abstract

Animal communication follows many coding schemes. Less is known about the coding strategy for signal length and rates of use in animal vocal communication. A generalized brevity (negative relation between signal length and frequency of use) is innovatively explored but remains controversial in animal vocal communication. We tested brevity for short-range social and distress sounds from four echolocating bats: adult black-bearded tomb bat Taphozous melanopogon, Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis, adult greater horseshoe bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum, and adult least horseshoe bat Rhinolophus pusillus. There was a negative association between duration and number of social but not distress calls emitted. The most frequently emitted social calls were brief, while most distress calls were long. Brevity or lengthiness was consistently selected in vocal communications for each species. Echolocating bats seem to have convergent coding strategy for communication calls. The results provide the evidence of efficient coding in bat social vocalizations, and lay the basis of future researches on the convergence for neural control on bats' communication calls.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Poland 1 2%
Unknown 40 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 24%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 10%
Professor 3 7%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 7 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 66%
Psychology 2 5%
Linguistics 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 5 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 22 November 2019.
All research outputs
#5,336,978
of 25,196,456 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#316
of 1,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,797
of 296,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,196,456 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,501 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 296,035 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.