↓ Skip to main content

Sneaking a peek: pigeons use peripheral vision (not mirrors) to find hidden food

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Sneaking a peek: pigeons use peripheral vision (not mirrors) to find hidden food
Published in
Animal Cognition, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10071-017-1090-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emre Ünver, Alexis Garland, Sepideh Tabrik, Onur Güntürkün

Abstract

A small number of species are capable of recognizing themselves in the mirror when tested with the mark-and-mirror test. This ability is often seen as evidence of self-recognition and possibly even self-awareness. Strangely, a number of species, for example monkeys, pigs and dogs, are unable to pass the mark test but can locate rewarding objects by using the reflective properties of a mirror. Thus, these species seem to understand how a visual reflection functions but cannot apply it to their own image. We tested this discrepancy in pigeons-a species that does not spontaneously pass the mark test. Indeed, we discovered that pigeons can successfully find a hidden food reward using only the reflection, suggesting that pigeons can also use and potentially understand the reflective properties of mirrors, even in the absence of self-recognition. However, tested under monocular conditions, the pigeons approached and attempted to walk through the mirror rather than approach the physical food, displaying similar behavior to patients with mirror agnosia. These findings clearly show that pigeons do not use the reflection of mirrors to locate reward, but actually see the food peripherally with their near-panoramic vision. A re-evaluation of our current understanding of mirror-mediated behavior might be necessary-especially taking more fully into account species differences in visual field. This study suggests that use of reflections in a mirrored surface as a tool may be less widespread than currently thought.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 4%
Canada 1 4%
Unknown 23 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 20%
Researcher 4 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 16%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 4 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 16%
Neuroscience 2 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 8 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 July 2017.
All research outputs
#12,972,913
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,043
of 1,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,429
of 310,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#19
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,460 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.4. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 310,129 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
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.