↓ Skip to main content

Tool choice on the basis of rigidity in capuchin monkeys

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, May 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
Tool choice on the basis of rigidity in capuchin monkeys
Published in
Animal Cognition, May 2011
DOI 10.1007/s10071-011-0410-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Héctor Marín Manrique, Gloria Sabbatini, Josep Call, Elisabetta Visalberghi

Abstract

Wild capuchin monkeys select stone tools to crack open nuts on the basis of their weight and friability, two non-visual functional properties. Here, we investigated whether they would select new stick-like tools on the basis of their rigidity. In Experiment 1, subjects faced an out-of-reach reward and a choice of three unfamiliar tools differing in color, diameter, material, and rigidity. In order to retrieve the reward, capuchins needed to select the rigid tool exemplar. Capuchins gathered information regarding tools' pliability either by (1) manipulating the tools themselves (manipulation condition), (2) observing a human demonstrator repeatedly bending the tools (observation condition), or (3) seeing the tools placed on a platform without any manipulation taking place (visual static condition). Subjects selected the rigid tool above chance levels in both the manipulation and observation conditions, but not in the visual static condition. In Experiment 2, subjects needed to select and use a flexible tool to access a liquid reward (as opposed to the rigid tool, as in previous experiment). Again, capuchins selected above chance levels the appropriate tool (i.e., flexible), thus demonstrating a good appreciation of the relation between the tool properties and the task requirements.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Austria 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 63 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 26%
Researcher 17 25%
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 5 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 41%
Psychology 20 29%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 9 13%
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 03 September 2011.
All research outputs
#7,472,296
of 22,844,985 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#968
of 1,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,542
of 110,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#10
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,844,985 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,453 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.5. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 110,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.