You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
An Obedient Orangutan (Pongo abelii) Performs Perfectly in Peripheral Object-Choice Tasks but Fails the Standard Centrally Presented Versions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Comparative Psychology, January 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1037/a0020905 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicholas J. Mulcahy, Thomas Suddendorf |
| Abstract |
Mulcahy and Call (2009) found that bonobos (Pan paniscus) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) but not orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) perform significantly better in a peripheral version of the object-choice task compared to the original central version. Orangutans may have failed because they avoided direct eye contact with the experimenter when the cue was given. We investigated this possibility by conducting peripheral and central object choice tasks with an obedient orangutan (Pongo abelii) whom the experimenter could elicit eye contact with in each trial. In contrast to Mulcahy and Call's findings, the subject only failed the object choice task when tested with the central and not the peripheral version. We investigated whether success was because of the greater distance the subject was required to move in order to make a choice in peripheral trials. Results show that this was an unlikely factor in the subject's success. We discuss our findings in relation to previous and future object-choice research. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 33% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 17% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 19 | 63% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 17% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Design | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 10% |
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 06 April 2013.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Psychology
#1,482
of 1,586 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,829
of 190,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Psychology
#24
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,586 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 190,479 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.