↓ Skip to main content

Numerical acuity of fish is improved in the presence of moving targets, but only in the subitizing range

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
Title
Numerical acuity of fish is improved in the presence of moving targets, but only in the subitizing range
Published in
Animal Cognition, July 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10071-013-0663-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Agrillo, Maria Elena Miletto Petrazzini, Angelo Bisazza

Abstract

There is controversy in comparative psychology about whether on the one hand non-symbolic number estimation of small (≤4) and large numbers involves a single mechanism (an approximate number system), or whether on the other hand enumeration of the numbers 1-4 is accomplished by a separate mechanism, an object tracking system. To date, support for the latter hypothesis has come only from the different ratio-dependency of performance seen in the two numerical ranges, a reading that has been criticized on several grounds. In humans, the two-system hypothesis is supported by evidence showing that manipulation of the physical properties of the stimuli (e.g., the motion of the items) has dissimilar effects on small- and large-number discrimination. In this research, we studied this effect on guppies. Initially, fish were trained to simultaneously discriminate two numerical contrasts having the same easy ratio (0.50): one in the small-number (2 vs. 4) range and one in the large-number (6 vs. 12) range. Half of the fish were presented with moving items; the other half were shown the same stimuli without motion. Fish were then subjected to non-reinforced probe trials in the presence of a more difficult ratio (0.75: 3 vs. 4 and 9 vs. 12). Under both static and moving conditions, the fish significantly discriminated 6 versus 12, but not 9 versus 12 items. As regards small numbers, both groups learned to discriminate a 0.50 ratio, but only fish tested with moving stimuli also discriminated 3 and 4 items. This differential effect suggests that fish may possess two separate systems for small- and large-number discrimination.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 58 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 30%
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Master 6 10%
Professor 2 3%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 30%
Psychology 14 23%
Neuroscience 5 8%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 16 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 August 2013.
All research outputs
#14,839,997
of 24,340,143 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,182
of 1,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,621
of 202,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#20
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,340,143 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,531 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 202,889 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.