↓ Skip to main content

Extensive training extends numerical abilities of guppies

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Extensive training extends numerical abilities of guppies
Published in
Animal Cognition, May 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10071-014-0759-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angelo Bisazza, Christian Agrillo, Tyrone Lucon-Xiccato

Abstract

Recent studies on animal mathematical abilities suggest that all vertebrates show comparable abilities when they are given spontaneous preference tests, such as selecting the larger number of food items, but that mammals and birds generally achieve much better performance than fish when tested with training procedures. At least part of these differences might be due to the fact that fish are usually trained with only one or two dozen trials while extensive training, sometimes with thousands of trials, is normally performed in studies of mammals and birds. To test this hypothesis, female guppies were trained on four consecutive numerical discriminations of increasing difficulty (from 2 vs. 3 to 5 vs. 6 items), with up to 120 trials with each discrimination. Five out of eight subjects discriminated all contrasts up to 4 versus 5 objects at levels significantly better than chance, a much higher limit than the 2 versus 3 limit previously reported in studies that provided fish with only short training sequences. Our findings indicate that the difference in numerical cognition between teleosts and warm-blooded vertebrates might be smaller than previously supposed.

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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 15%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 23 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 27%
Psychology 9 13%
Environmental Science 5 7%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 24 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 19 July 2022.
All research outputs
#7,241,120
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#947
of 1,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,362
of 226,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#16
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,458 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 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 226,651 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.