↓ Skip to main content

Behavioural Lateralization in Budgerigars Varies with the Task and the Individual

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
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.
Title
Behavioural Lateralization in Budgerigars Varies with the Task and the Individual
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0082670
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ingo Schiffner, Mandyam V. Srinivasan

Abstract

Handedness/footedness and side biases are a well-known phenomenon in many animals, including humans. However, these so-called biases have mostly been studied at the population level--individual biases have received less attention, especially with regard to consistency over different tasks. Here we investigate behavioral lateralization in 12 male Budgerigars, Melopsittacus undulatus, a social parrot inhabiting the Australian bushlands. We performed 5 types of experiments to investigate lateralization, in tasks that involved climbing onto a perch, or landing on perches arranged in various configurations. The birds displayed highly significant, individually varying biases. The bias displayed by any particular individual varied with the task, in strength as well as polarity. Analysis of the data revealed that the preferred foot used for climbing did not coincide with the foot that was used while landing. Thus, landing choices are probably not determined by foot bias. Furthermore, these individual preferences were overridden completely when a bird had to perform a task simultaneously with another bird.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 30%
Researcher 6 26%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 52%
Psychology 2 9%
Computer Science 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Sports and Recreations 1 4%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 4 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 05 November 2014.
All research outputs
#1,422,170
of 22,733,113 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#18,635
of 194,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,074
of 306,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#525
of 5,039 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,733,113 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 194,037 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 306,486 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 5,039 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.