↓ Skip to main content

Means–end comprehension in four parrot species: explained by social complexity

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, 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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
Title
Means–end comprehension in four parrot species: explained by social complexity
Published in
Animal Cognition, February 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10071-013-0609-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anastasia Krasheninnikova, Stefan Bräger, Ralf Wanker

Abstract

A comparative approach is required to investigate the evolutionary origins of cognitive abilities. In this paper, we compare the performance of four parrot species, spectacled parrotlets (Forpus conspicillatus), rainbow lorikeets (Trichoglossus haematodus), green-winged macaws (Ara chloroptera) and sulphur-crested cockatoos (Cacatua galerita triton) in standardized string-pulling and string-choice paradigms. We varied the spatial relationship between the strings, the presence of a reward and the physical contact between the string and the reward to test different cognitive skills requiring means-end comprehension. The species tested showed a high individual and inter-specific variation in their ability to solve the tasks. Spectacled parrotlets performed best among the four species and solved the most complex choice tasks, namely crossed-string task and broken-string task, spontaneously. In contrast, macaws and cockatoos failed to identify the correct string in these two tasks. The rainbow lorikeets were outperformed by the parrotlets, but outperformed in turn the macaws and the cockatoos. The findings can be best explained by the variation in social complexity among species, rather than in their ecology.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Germany 1 1%
Argentina 1 1%
Unknown 90 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 21%
Student > Master 16 17%
Student > Bachelor 14 15%
Researcher 14 15%
Professor 5 5%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 7 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 43 46%
Psychology 21 22%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Environmental Science 4 4%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 12 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 23 December 2016.
All research outputs
#1,578,947
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#370
of 1,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,623
of 285,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#4
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 285,544 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.