↓ Skip to main content

How great apes perform on a modified trap-tube task

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, April 2006
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 (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
109 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 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
How great apes perform on a modified trap-tube task
Published in
Animal Cognition, April 2006
DOI 10.1007/s10071-006-0019-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas J. Mulcahy, Josep Call

Abstract

To date, neither primates nor birds have shown clear evidence of causal knowledge when attempting to solve the trap tube task. One factor that may have contributed to mask the knowledge that subjects may have about the task is that subjects were only allowed to push the reward away from them, which is a particularly difficult action for primates in certain problem solving situations. We presented five orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), two chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), two bonobos (Pan paniscus), and one gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) with a modified trap tube that allowed subjects to push or rake the reward with the tool. In two additional follow-up tests, we inverted the tube 180 degrees rendering the trap nonfunctional and also presented subjects with the original task in which they were required to push the reward out of the tube. Results showed that all but one of the subjects preferred to rake the reward. Two orangutans and one chimpanzee (all of whom preferred to rake the reward), consistently avoided the trap only when it was functional but failed the original task. These findings suggest that some great apes may have some causal knowledge about the trap-tube task. Their success, however, depended on whether they were allowed to choose certain tool-using actions.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 146 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 24%
Researcher 31 20%
Student > Bachelor 27 18%
Student > Master 17 11%
Professor 5 3%
Other 20 13%
Unknown 17 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 55 36%
Psychology 53 34%
Environmental Science 7 5%
Arts and Humanities 4 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 19 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 27 March 2014.
All research outputs
#3,188,069
of 22,751,628 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#594
of 1,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,062
of 66,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,751,628 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,443 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 58% 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 66,472 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.