| Title |
Variation in gaze-following between two Asian colobine monkeys
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Primates, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10329-017-0612-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tao Chen, Jie Gao, Jingzhi Tan, Ruoting Tao, Yanjie Su |
| Abstract |
Gaze-following is a basic cognitive ability found in numerous primate and nonprimate species. However, little is known about this ability and its variation in colobine monkeys. We compared gaze-following of two Asian colobines-François' langurs (Trachypithecus francoisi) and golden snub-nosed monkeys (Rhinopithecus roxellana). Although both species live in small polygynous family units, units of the latter form multilevel societies with up to hundreds of individuals. François' langurs (N = 15) were less sensitive to the gaze of a human experimenter than were golden snub-nosed monkeys (N = 12). We then tested the two species using two classic inhibitory control tasks-the cylinder test and the A-not-B test. We found no difference between species in inhibitory control, which called into question the nonsocial explanation for François' langur's weaker sensitivity to human gaze. These findings are consistent with the social intelligence hypothesis, which predicted that golden snub-nosed monkeys would outperform François' langurs in gaze-following because of the greater size and complexity of their social groups. Furthermore, our results underscore the need for more comparative studies of cognition in colobines, which should provide valuable opportunities to test hypotheses of cognitive evolution. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 16 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 17% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 33% |
| Psychology | 3 | 17% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
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 17 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,462,982
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Primates
#837
of 1,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,027
of 313,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Primates
#9
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,016 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 313,673 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.