↓ Skip to main content

Do wild New Caledonian crows (Corvus moneduloides) attend to the functional properties of their tools?

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Do wild New Caledonian crows (Corvus moneduloides) attend to the functional properties of their tools?
Published in
Animal Cognition, October 2007
DOI 10.1007/s10071-007-0108-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer C. Holzhaider, Gavin R. Hunt, Victoria M. Campbell, Russell D. Gray

Abstract

New Caledonian crows are the most proficient non-hominin tool manufacturers but the cognition behind their remarkable skills remains largely unknown. Here we investigate if they attend to the functional properties of the tools that they routinely use in the wild. Pandanus tools have natural barbs along one edge that enable them to function as hooking implements when the barbs face backwards from the working tip. In experiment 1 we presented eight crows with either a non-functional ('upside-down') or a functional pandanus tool in a baited hole. Four of the crows never flipped the tools. The behaviour of the four flipping birds suggested that they had a strategy of flipping a tool when it was not working. Observations of two of the eight crows picking up pandanus tools at feeding tables in the wild supported the lack of attention to barb direction. In experiment 2 we gave six of the eight crows a choice of either a barbed or a barbless pandanus tool. Five of the crows chose tools at random, which further supported the findings in experiment 1 that the crows paid little or no attention to the barbs. In contrast, a third experiment found that seven out of eight crows flipped non-functional stick tools significantly more than functional ones. Our findings indicate that the crows do not consistently attend to the presence or orientation of barbs on pandanus tools. Successful pandanus tool use in the wild seems to rely on behavioural strategies formed through associative learning, including procedural knowledge about the sequence of operations required to make a successful pandanus tool.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
United Kingdom 3 3%
Austria 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 90 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 20%
Student > Master 18 18%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 7 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 51 50%
Psychology 20 20%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Arts and Humanities 3 3%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 12 12%
Attention Score in Context

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 09 December 2010.
All research outputs
#20,187,333
of 22,703,044 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,382
of 1,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,802
of 75,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,703,044 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 1,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.5. 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 75,437 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 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.